PUBLIC FORUM : DOWD CONVICTS STARR FOR CLINTON'S CONDUCT.

A response to Maureen Dowd, ``Driving himself wild over Monica,'' Opinions, Sept. 24:

Does Dowd seriously consider Kenneth Starr the most powerful man in America?

That's quite a compliment. A public servant is assigned by his president's administration to serve his country in an objective investigation. He works diligently, uncovering what Attorney General Janet Reno asked for: the truth.

He discloses the ugly detail only when his hand is forced by the denial of the man being investigated. He doesn't fabricate it, but simply reports the facts, and now Dowd takes a flying leap from worldwide acknowledgment of guilt on the part of our president and transfers it to his accuser.

Even if Starr could be liable for overkill, I've got news. He wasn't the one obsessing over Monica Lewinsky.

Dowd's creative writing would have us drawn into a moral bait and switch. To accuse, convict and execute Kenneth Starr for his own wrongdoing is one thing. To give him a literary lynching for Bill Clinton's sin is quite another.

Sin is sin. It bears its consequences. Punishment serves to strengthen a society. But if sin is rationalized, minimized, defended or deflected, as Dowd has done so inventively, it so weakens a society that confusion reigns. Bill Clinton is now the victim and Ken Starr is now guilty of Bill's sin. Right becomes wrong, and wrong becomes right. Where does that road lead us?

- Neal F. Brower

Burbank

Regarding Maureen Dowd's column:

I have never read such a stupid, vicious diatribe in my life. Will everyone stop castigating Kenneth Starr for doing his job.

- William Mills

Sylmar

William J. Bennett in his new book, ``The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals,'' says ``the president's corruption has corrupted the nation.''

He and a multitude of other pundits now spouting off about our Willie have completely failed to recognize the underlying reality of the situation. The president's corruption has not corrupted the nation. Clinton was elected because the nation had already corrupted itself before anyone even knew who Clinton was.

The people who elected Bill Clinton knew before the election that he was deficient in honesty, integrity, moral character, straightforwardness, purity, decency, principle, virtue, etc. But they felt comfortable with him because he had that common touch. He was like they are. They did not want anyone who would make them feel bad by comparison.

Let the will of the American people prevail. Let them have their sleazebag. Maybe they will learn something about what makes or breaks a great nation. I am not a Clinton lover, a Democrat lover or a liberal lover. But, it doesn't take a genius to see where the sympathies of the man on the street lie.

Those who insist on punishing Bill will do so at their own peril. We all know that they are just as bad as Clinton but are much smarter at covering it up.

It is the lack of intelligence on Clinton's part that bothers me most. I hate to have a guy who is so stupid as to mess up as he has running the country.

- Jay P. Kilman

Lancaster

The most frightening thing I can imagine right now is the plan to get the president out of office any way opponents can and then to impeach Al Gore for giving Clinton amnesty.

Newt Gingrich would be next in line for the presidency. I can't imagine anything worse.

Why can't people see where this is heading?

You talk about dirty games.

- Dorothy Arment

Rosamond

In response to ``Starr disregards privacy, common decency'' by Fred W. Coble in Public Forum on Sept. 17:

Before my retirement, I was an investigator for a large corporation and understand the basics of conducting investigations. Starr, in my opinion, conducted a very forthright and thorough investigation.

In any investigation, all leads must be exhausted, and all information in the final report must be complete and factual. The exact words spoken by witnesses must be reported. You cannot deviate. You cannot change or omit information supplied by witnesses or informants. Nor can you change or alter any documents compiled during an investigation.

In my humble opinion, Starr complied with the requirements.

People seem to forget that Starr requested that Congress use discretion in disseminating the final investigative report to the public. It was the responsibility of Congress and the news media, not Starr, to censor this report before publication.

Clinton's actions were indecent, despicable and reckless. They brought shame and disgrace to the White House and the entire United States. He then had the gall to appear on national television and lie to you, to me and all Americans.

For some reason people always like to blame the messenger. But if anyone brought this president to his knees or embarrassed our country, it was the president himself, not Starr or anyone else.

- Ray Hudson

Sylmar

``Where's the outrage?'' in Viewpoint on Sept. 27 makes me wonder where the news media in this country are getting their information.

In my business, I talk to people all over the country every day. In the past few weeks, I have talked with hundreds of people representing many walks of life in many states. Not one has said to me that Clinton should be permitted to continue in office.

It makes me wonder where the pollsters are getting their information. There are compelling arguments for simply asking Clinton to resign. First, he has embarrassed the United States before the world. No corporate executive who did that would be permitted to return to work the next day. Clinton should be no different.

Second, it is pure fiction that Clinton is in charge or that he is responsible for the economy being in a bullish mode.

We cannot trust such careless hands with something so important as life and death on this planet.

- Claude Stephenson

Northridge

`Ill-conceived initiative'

Proposition 8 is an ill-conceived initiative that will harm schools and students.

I believe it is poorly crafted and would waste precious education dollars on a new bureaucracy.

Proposition 8 proposes to ensure funding for class size reduction and zero tolerance for drugs in schools. The class-size reduction program for kindergarten through third grade, which is outlined in the initiative, is already annually funded in California and will continue without Proposition 8. The initiative does nothing to expand class-size reduction to other grades.

Also, California already has a strict policy in place to rid our schools of drugs. Proposition 8 merely ties the hands of legislators and educators in the future.

Proposition 8 would create a new, unaccountable arm of government: the Office of the Chief Inspector. The chief inspector would have the power of a czar. He or she would be appointed by the governor for a 10-year period without any confirmation process. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the Office of the Chief Inspector would cost about $15 million to $20 million annually.

- Steve Gould

Simi Valley

Editorial rebuttal

Re ``Full speed ahead; solving 101-405 interchange nightmare requires broader approach, and quickly,'' Editorials, Sept. 16:

Your statement that ``we need leaders who are looking ahead and not in the rear-view mirror'' is correct, but it is misguided in suggesting the answer to relieve the bottleneck on the 101-405 interchange is to build more freeway lanes.

The answer is to deliver work and services over an area more convenient to where people live.

To have people seeking a marriage license travel 20 or 30 miles to the appropriate government location is, in these days, silly. It could be done with a simple fax. That is also true with most other government paper requirements.

When you stated, ``We need leaders who can climb to the top of the mountain and see the promised land from a 360-degree perch,'' you forgot to say the age of smoke signals is over. Pick up the phone, Stupid.

- Robert M. Halet

Woodland Hills

Fighting nuisance businesses

Once again our Los Angeles Police Department is under attack by those who represent undesirable businesses (``LAPD revising abatement procedure,'' Daily News, Sept. 22).

We have witnessed and participated in many public hearings where such businesses were accused by community members of being havens for drugs, prostitution, gangs or other types of criminal activity. The LAPD has also testified at these hearings and always in a most professional manner.

Before Chief Bernard Parks decides to reform the nuisance abatement process once again, he should hold community meetings in South Central Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. What he will find is widespread support for LAPD officers to testify at these hearings as they have done, identifying, in a systematic and documented manner, the issues of public safety and quality of life as related to nuisance businesses and their adverse impact on the community.

It is only natural that someone who represents a business identified as a public nuisance would attempt to eliminate any documented testimony that would work against clients.

Many businesses throughout the city of Los Angeles are operating more responsibly and have become better neighbors because of conditions mandated by the City Council after completing the nuisance-abatement process. To hamper this process by restricting LAPD testimony would destroy any hope for a better quality of life for residents and responsible businesses.

We say leave well enough alone.

- Don and Prudy Schultz

Van Nuys