Pinkerton, Scheer on Trial’s End

In James Pinkerton’s Feb. 15 commentary, he takes a gratuitous slap at President Eisenhower. It is bad enough that liberal historians condemn Eisenhower with faint praise; it is inexcusable when Republicans do it.

Pinkerton writes that Eisenhower chose to “golf through the dwindling days of his lame-duck presidency.” This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Eisenhower was deeply involved in negotiations with Khrushchev for his “atoms for peace” proposal and in myriad other crucial matters, right to the end of his second term.

I’m weary of people who were not around then, labeling the ‘50s as a somnolent and complacent decade and denigrating Eisenhower as its spokesman. The ‘50s, outwardly a time, thanks largely to Eisenhower, of peace and prosperity, were haunted by the Cold War at its most intense. Also, the civil rights issues were reaching a head, thanks to the 1954 Supreme Court decision integrating the schools.


Los Angeles


Calm and balanced Robert Scheer isn’t always; but he sure says what’s in my gut (Column Left, Feb. 16). Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Richard Mellon Scaife and Kenneth Starr are malevolent actors in the political arena. The problem is that this isn’t over unless the guilty just mentioned pay a heavy price.

The country, its politics, the Congress and the presidency will be much better off if the GOP keeps up its anti-Clinton obsession and gets beaten badly in November 2000.



Agoura Hills


Scheer equates Clinton not being removed from office with an acquittal. Wrong. Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd summed it up when he said it was obvious that Clinton had perjured himself and obstructed justice. But Byrd did not think such crimes merited removal from office. That’s a point which has been debated and decided.

Clinton has degraded and shamed his office with his low character--we all know that. Gloat? About what?


Thousand Oaks