Stephanopoulos

* Re “Stephanopoulos Tells All,” March 12: I don’t know which is more appalling, our president’s sexual escapades and his subsequent lies or that his former aides seem to lack the same moral compass they berate him for losing.

George Stephanopoulos defends the decision to write his tell-all book while President Clinton is still in office by saying that other people have done the same thing. Dee Dee Myers, toying with her own book contract no doubt, says that Clinton’s lack of loyalty gives her freedom to be disloyal, too.

Doesn’t this sound like two wrongs making a right?

Maybe my parents were too old-fashioned. They taught me to tell the truth, that my loyalty was not predicated on someone else’s behavior but my own character and not to profit from the misfortunes of others. I wonder what George’s and Dee Dee’s kids will learn.

LAURA J. MOREFIELD

Santa Clarita

* Your article asked whether Stephanopoulos has been disloyal in revealing his doubts about the fitness of Bill Clinton to have been entrusted with the powers of the presidency. There can be no doubt about where your writer stands on the question. To him, Clinton was responsible for the position Stephanopoulos held, and, therefore, it was his duty to keep quiet about anything damaging that he may have learned in the White House about the character of its occupant, at least until Clinton was gone.

This notion of loyalty reflects a primitive tribalism we’re more used to seeing in movies about the Mafia than in discussions of democratic government. Does it not occur to your writer that both Clinton and his aide owed their loyalty to the American people, not to their personal interests; and that only someone granted intimate access has the ability to disclose what is hidden and lied about by those dishonoring the larger public trust?

DOUGLAS TOOHEY

Costa Mesa

* Washington’s latest outbreak: a Steph(anopoulos) infection.

JAN REED

Sierra Madre