LETTERS: WHERE IS PROOF OF THE ALLEGATIONS?

To the editor:

I read in disbelief the reported comments and allegations state Sen. Peter Kinder was quoted as saying in the front-page article, "Group of lawmakers pushes impeachment." Nov. 7. In this article, Kinder said, "I believe Bill Clinton is an appallingly corrupt president, the most corrupt we have ever had. I believe he and his wife have probably been involved in obstruction of justice, corrupting the FBI, the IRS and other abuses. Janet Reno is a joke at the Justice Department, the FBI has been compromised. There was more, but I believe this is sufficient enough to make my point.

These are some serious allegations. My disbelief was not founded on the fact that these allegations might be true. I was thunderstruck that an individual who has been entrusted to an office such as Kinder has been would so casually make such statements unless he was willing and able to prove them.

I have a great amount of respect for all that Kinder fights for and the beliefs he stands for in keeping and re-establishing moral values in our land. Nevertheless, it is my firm conviction that when a person who holds such an office as Kinder does, one should exercise extreme discipline in judgment and use wisdom in speaking of those who hold such positions as Janet Reno and Bill Clinton. Any dog can bark in his own back yard. It is the dog who considers his foe and his intentions before sounding a warming who receives the most respect from both its owner and any intruder.

Once Kinder called me into his office at the Missourian and politely informed me that the newspaper could not publish a poem I had written about an earthquake. The reason it could not be published, according to Kinder, was because I could not prove the area was going to have an earthquake. It was an allegation and not a fact. Does Kinder think that it is all right for him to make allegations about the president of the United States without proof and wrong for me to write a poem about an alleged earthquake because it might instill fear in the hearts of newspapers readers? My mom used to always say something I never understood until now: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Somehow it seems to fit here.

Lest I be misunderstood, this letters is not in defense of the man holding the office of president. When he was re-elected, my own personal thought were that God must be using him to punish our nation for the sins it had committed. For whatever reason he was re-elected. He holds the highest office in our land. And that office is still to be respected, as should the person who holds that office still be respected until there is absolute proof he is unfit for that office.

RON FARROW

Cape Girardeau