LETTERS: PRICE IS PAID WHEN DUTY IS THWARTED

To the editor:

Before the evening newscast, it appears the Republicans were, at least to a degree, calling to accountability the actions of the president. I suppose we will never know whether last week's military incursions or those a few weeks earlier were motivated by necessity or politics. It is deplorable that the question is even considered. Regardless of motivation or guilt, his lack of discretion is below the dignity of one who has been given public trust. Whether it will be proven that he lied to the grand jury remains to be seen. That he lied on national television to the American people cannot be denied. Such action degrades the office and is an affront to the nation. If that alone is not sufficient to remove any president, it should be.

Even before he admitted lying about "inappropriate behavior," can anyone really believe that all those people were lying about his adultery, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and Cattlegate, not to mention Vince Foster's files, whereas he alone told the truth? Who could possibly think this is only about sex. I am apalled that anyone with such an array of questionable charges from so many sources can be president. I has been said, "Where there is smoke there is fire." I am disgusted that the American people do not find such behavior deplorable. I was brought up in a value system where truth, courage, principle and faith were words that had meaning. That generation paid a price dating back to World War I. When the present crowd was called to duty, their reaction was to demonstrate rather than serve. I do not defend the Vietnam War, but a price is paid when duty is thwarted.

Any candidate for president of the United States whose drug use is of sufficiently common knowledge that he is questioned on national television should be considered a joke. To accept his feeble excuse then was to invite embarrassment now. The claim that indiscretion in private life has no bearing if it does not affect public performance is naive or hypocritical. One's private life inherently affects all aspects of his life, public and private. Where is the line between public and private life anyway? Is lying to one's family less offensive than lying to us? The claim that lying about adultery is not offensives because everybody does it is an affront to all honest marriages, of which there are plenty.

The extremes to which his defenders go are an insult to our intelligence. I suppose they think we are too dumb to know, but if it works, maybe their right.

LEE ROY KELLER

Cape Girardeau