I am writing an addendum to the April 9 letter, “Bush’s Crimes Call for Impeachment” by Paul Goodman. Although this piece was reassured of popular interest in political issues, I found it inaccurately misleading. I am concerned with the hostile tone directed at two individuals.

First, Congress requested Kenneth Starr’s service as independent counsel — a lackluster position initiated to scrutinize the executive. To understand why he accepted this civil servant position, one should analyze Mr. Starr’s motives. Were they for money? No, he is a successful attorney in Washington, D.C.

Fame? Not only is Starr a respected scholar of law with an “all-star” vitae (serving as Solicitor General from 1989 to 1993), but prior to the independent counsel he was an obvious candidate for the Supreme Court. Did he have a personal vendetta against Clinton? No, Starr had no association with Clinton.

Or was it a conservative conspiracy? Simply, would anyone who aimed to serve his country sacrifice a judicial appointment to investigate another without any personal incentive? Seriously! I have a simple and honest answer that apparently escapes the minds of many. Kenneth Starr is a hard worker, who completed his assignment well. In a pedantic way he completed his charge with as much fervor as expected on any case.

Secondly, in regards to Bush’s mandate to rule, our 43rd president was elected by the guidelines in the Constitution stipulating the formation of an Electoral College (Twelfth Amendment) and a plurality system. Comparing Bush’s popular vote with that of Clinton’s, who won in a “democratic fashion,” is misleading.

Bush received 50,456,002 or 47.87 percent of the votes (Gore had only 543,895 more) in comparison with Clinton who only received 43.3 percent in 1992. Criticisms should be appropriately reserved for our election system, not those who are elected to serve. After all, the system is ours.

Guy Solicitus

Alumnus