Impeachment foes endorse Clinton's wrongful behavior
I find your lead editorial ("No grounds are shown for an impeachment," Sept. 27) to be both insulting and disappointing.
By taking this position, you are going on record as openly endorsing: lying under oath, lying to a grand jury, conspiring to defraud the court, obstructing justice through lying to those surrounding the president -- while knowing they would repeat those lies in front of the grand jury -- and hiding behind legal technicalities.
That position also would appear to endorse abolition of sexual harassment laws as we know them -- all such cases in the future will no doubt resort to the "Clinton Defense" -- as a way to excuse improper sexual behavior by a superior with a subordinate.
When Watergate dominated the news, I joined the throng calling for Richard Nixon's head. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the burglary or the cover-up. The reason I supported ousting Nixon was that he abdicated his responsibilities as president. For six months, we were paralyzed as he turned slowly in the wind.
I see very close parallels between Nixon and Mr. Clinton. Deplorable conduct in office, use of government resources to cover up what, in essence, were small crimes and essentially going into hiding to avoid the public.
It slays me the degree to which you have gone to vilify Kenneth Starr for doing his job. You express anger at Mr. Starr and Congress for releasing explicit details but show little anger at the individual who actually engaged in this behavior in the Oval Office, a place considered sacred by most Americans.
Lying under oath is a felony and clearly fits the definition. Yet you give Mr. Clinton a pass because he espouses your liberal agenda.
Ask yourself where The Sun would be on this issue if Clarence Thomas had been caught in "inappropriate" sexual conduct with a 21-year-old law clerk. If you are honest, I think you know the answer.
Gary D. Ballard
Bel Air
From liberal Democrat: Clinton should resign
I am an ardent Democrat. If pressed, I might even confess to being a liberal. I happily voted for President Clinton twice and consider him the most competent president in my lifetime. I also despise many of his critics and consider their moral indignation to be even more repugnant than the president's misconduct.
I think the president is largely a victim in all of this, a victim of the public's outrageous invasion of his privacy.
Despite all of this, I believe he has squandered his presidency and has become a liability to our party and our nation. It is time for him to go. He should resign, and sooner rather than later.
The fact that the president has lost someone like me means he is in real trouble, and the sooner he faces this fact, the better for all of us.
Larry DeWitt
Baltimore
Better explanation needed of mustard agent disposal
I cannot believe what I read in your newspaper ("Aberdeen gets Army OK for mustard agent plan," Sept. 30). The headline wasn't too bad, but I had a problem with your first paragraph that said the Army planned to destroy its stockpile of mustard agent by "neutralizing it and dumping it in the Bush River."
Your reporter Neal Thompson doesn't explain what "it" is. The first "it" is neutralizing mustard agent. The second "it" is water left over from the biodegradation process, which your reporter felt was so unimportant that he left it out of the first paragraph.
About 12 paragraphs later, biodegradation is mentioned, but only after many readers are upset at the Army's dumping anything in the Bush River. If your reporter would have said leftover, purified water, instead of "it," I would not feel compelled to write this letter.
Concerned Citizens has spent 13 years studying this issue. We opposed an incinerator and we would oppose dumping anything hazardous in the Bush River.
Linda Koplovitz
Bel Air
The writer is president of Concerned Citizens for Maryland's Environment and is a member of the Maryland State Citizens Advisory Commission on Demilitarization.
With social insecurity, it's not time to cut taxes
The Congressional Budget Office claims that no true surplus is in sight before 2006 and that it will evaporate after 2008 when the baby boomers begin to retire and claim Social Security benefits. The budget surplus is an illusion, visible only by borrowing billions of dollars earmarked for Social Security pay for routine costs of government. In return, Social Security receives a big pile of IOUs.
Tax cuts now would compound future deficits and worsen the Social Security funding crisis.
However, if the next recession is severe, a broad-based tax cut may be needed to stimulate the economy.
My friends and I hope that someday the Robin Hoods of the red ink in Washington will stop spending money that our government does not have.
Joseph Lerner
Baltimore
Republican tax cut appeals to greed
All politicians insult my intelligence as they place their transparent spin on reality. But Republicans have taken a giant step beyond with their $80 billion "give the surplus back to the people" tax cut legislation. They have insulted my
values,assuming that if I received the few hundred dollars the tax cut would bring, I would be forever grateful to them. Have they no understanding that people such as I do not share their greed and their irresponsibility?
Doron Antrim
Reisterstown
Confederate event, protests show why America stands
In Alice Lukens' article "Angry words, but no violence" (Sept. 27) about the Confederate monument rededication at the Howard County courthouse, she quoted Stan Jordan, who pretty much said it all when he stated: "This is really, in my judgment, a celebration of democracy. It's like buttresses on opposing ends of the cathedral. They keep each other from falling in." He's absolutely right.
Flags and symbols don't hate; people do. Regardless of the politics of those times, we should strive to be tolerant of all the backgrounds that have brought us together. It's our history, and it belongs to all of us.
Ronald Lee Glazier
Ambler, Pa.
Sauerbrey was dead last in environmental votes
Former State Sen. Gerald Winegrad, a leading voice for the environment, said Ellen R. Sauerbrey would go "out of her way" to vote against the environment while she was a member of the House of Delegates ("Maryland Democrats denounce Sauerbrey's environmental record," Sept. 10).
It is amazing how Ms. Sauerbrey is pretending to be a moderate on issues she has been completely against in her past.
For 16 years, she voted against bills to protect the Chesapeake Bay. She voted against establishing a critical-areas program to protect and clean up the Chesapeake Bay (HB 970 in 1984).
She voted against creating a closely managed land buffer around the bay (SB 774 in 1984). She voted to limit liability for companies that spill oil in the bay (HB 683 in 1992).
Ms. Sauerbrey voted against the Clean Air Act that would reduce air pollution to comply with federal clean air standards (HB 1133 in 1993). These are just examples of many votes she cast to ditch the environment.
The League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan organization, recognizes Ms. Sauerbrey's defection on the environment. The LCV gave her the lowest environmental score in the entire House of Delegates from 1991 to 1994.
The league called Ms. Sauerbrey the worst legislator for the environment, even after she had been out of the House for four years (LCV press release, May 27, 1998).
Save the bay and protect the environment. Vote against Ms. Sauerbrey.
Thomas E. Quirk
Timonium
No thanks, governor, for opposition to slots
Yes, we should have slots at Maryland racetracks and keep our money here. If the information in the TV commercials is right, we could use the $100 million collected at Delaware slots. These commercials about Delaware thanking Marylanders for revenue from us make us, including our governor, look dumb.
Marge Griffith
Pasadena
Pub Date: 10/08/98