In Defense of or Offended by Khachigian

* Kenneth L. Khachigian’s Jan. 3 explanation of how and why normally intelligent liberal leaders can defend the president’s actions and cavalierly dismiss those actions as an innocent affair between consenting adults is very interesting and very revealing.

If someone as despised by the left as Dan Quayle happened to be president and committed such acts, the Democrats, especially U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, would be out to lynch him.

His performance in office would not matter one whit. The state of the economy would be totally irrelevant. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and Gloria Steinem wouldn’t sleep until the president had been removed.

Yet now such leaders are completely united and speak with a single voice: “Boys will be boys.” They scream in anguish that President Clinton is “being attacked” by the radical right who, they say, are guilty of blind partisanship.

In my opinion, nothing could be more evident of blind partisanship than closing your eyes, turning off your brain and defending the indefensible.

That elected females and leaders of the women’s movement could defend a 50-year-old married president who has illicit sex with a 21-year-old intern while in the Oval Office and while “on the job” is beyond the Twilight Zone.

DAVID B. KUHN JR.

Laguna Beach

* Did Bill Clinton once kick sand in the face of Ken Khachigian at the beach?

How else to explain Khachigian’s obsession with President Clinton?

Week after week, the venom spews from his computer thesaurus. Is Khachigian devoid of any interesting thoughts unrelated to Clinton’s sex life?

I don’t recall Khachigian taking umbrage over previous presidential lies. For example: President Reagan’s, “I won’t trade arms for hostages,” was a doozy. President Bush’s, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” And, my personal favorite, “Clarence Thomas is the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.” Those were just two whoppers that Bush told.

Where were the Khachigian columns condemning those deliberate falsehoods? Unlike President Clinton’s “indiscretions”--the GOP term for cheating on their own wives--Bush’s and Reagan’s lies directly impacted the country’s public policy. It seems to me that when it comes to presidential lies, Khachigian’s outrage is conveniently selective.

DAVID PEREZ

Fountain Valley

* I have been meaning to write the “Orange County Voices” and compliment them on the rare balance achieved by featuring both what a Jan. 3 letter writer called Kenneth L. Khachigian’s “radical conservative right” opinions and what I call Robert Scheer’s “radical liberal left” vitriol.

BEV PAYNE

Placentia

* It’s bad enough that The Times has given space to a Nixon retread to talk about “ethics,” but couldn’t you at least check his “facts”?

Rep. John Conyers Jr. did not call for Nixon’s impeachment because of the unproved allegation that, according to Khachigian, he “fudged” on his tax return. Conyers wanted Nixon impeached for a wide variety of reasons, including the tax charge. There was no need to pursue the tax charge with so many others easily proved.

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, says Khachigian, “undercut his presidential hopes” with “verbal wilding.” The fact is Gephardt’s speech spiked his popularity ratings.

Khachigian charges that “editorial writers” blame “extremists” for the impeachment. Well, wasn’t it the ultra-right of the Republican Party that stopped the vote for censure to force impeachment? Would we be here without the radical right? How can the 70% of the people who support Clinton all be on the left?

Khachigian charges that there is a “single-minded fetish to save this fetid presidency.” Wrong again.

The people are trying to prevent a quasi-legal lynching of one of the most popular presidents in American history. I understand why someone who was close to Nixon might not understand the concept but it’s called democracy. That’s what the “left” wants to save.

Khachigian cites “Nixon’s persevering to succeed in Vietnam. . . .” If there is a perfect example of Khachigian doublespeak, this is it. Vietnam was a success to the Republicans? Maybe that’s why they think the impeachment has been such a success. The problem is in understanding common words.

JIM CORBETT

San Clemente