It's interesting to note the lengths Clintonites will go in defense of their hero. It would be almost comical if what prompts the defense wasn't so sleazy.
A case in point is Paul Cook's Feb. 16 letter "Defends Clinton against the `radical right."' He says the state of our economy is good in spite of that 1993 budget which raised our taxes to world war levels and dismantled our defense establishment. As to personal income growth, the truth is that take-home pay for the average citizen is lower now then 1989.
He says the rush to more socialization of the health care and education fields is a good thing. Personally, I see socialism as communism without the firing squads -- and history confirms that view.
To say that Bill Clinton's foreign policy actions in Haiti, Bosnia, and Iraq provide for our national security qualifies as a sick joke.
Mr. Cook steals a line from Barbara Streisand and says we didn't elect Mr. Clinton to be pope, an obvious reference to the publicity of the various sex scandals. I doubt that I'm much different from the rest of the dastardly right wing when I say that I don't care if Bubba stays with George Stephanoplous or anyone else -- but anyone can see that we have one sick puppy in our White House. He is, as the 12 steppers would say, "in denial."
I suspect Mr. Cook's major problem in all this is the fact that the mainstream media has finally started reporting in his hero's flaws.
M. Burkholder, Augusta