Your Feb. 22 cover line, “The Survivor,” sums up William Jefferson Clinton. What Clinton has done, which led to that historic impeachment trial, was totally embarrassing and morally reprehensible, but he handled all his personal turmoil with great calmness and courage. His public strength despite his private pain taught us all a lesson.
Maria Salome Galon Bacolod, Philippines
I was taken aback by your headline about the president’s acquittal, “Why Clinton Won” (U.S. Affairs, Feb. 22). It only confirms what many people believe about Washington and politics in general: that these days, survival is winning. It’s not. No one is victorious in this sorry affair, not the public, not the Congress and certainly not the president. The fact that he remains in office should not be considered winning, in light of all that he has lost–the trust and respect of the American people.
Mitchell J. Katz Arlington, Virginia
Clinton did not win, he lost. he lost his integrity. Can he survive without that?
Dan Murphy Killarney, Ireland
Like everyone else, I’m so pleased the yearlong Clinton scandal is over. The lesson we can learn from this is that the president of the United States is a man–not a robot, nor God. Americans do not want to be led by a robot, do they?
Pham Hong Hai Metz, France
It is shocking that a leader who has done so much for the United States and the world should have had to suffer so much for a small mistake. He did what he did to save his wife and daughter from being hurt.
Lionel J. Seneviratne Mt. Lavinia, Sri Lanka
William Jefferson Clinton will be remembered as the president who lied to his country, committed perjury, cheated and committed high crimes–and got away with them.
Josie Pichler St. Jakob, Austria
It seems to me that questions of perjury and obstruction of justice have been testing the minds of congressional leaders only a little. The questions that seem to have concerned them more are “Where is the camera?” and “Where is the microphone?” Men in gray suits have been preening themselves like 17-year-old starlets, with their judgments on proceedings rarely rising above the sound bite. For what? They want to ensure their place in the history books.
Vaughan Thomas Cirebon, Indonesia
Thank goodness the long nightmare is finally over. Like the theater of the absurd it was, this elaborate saga revealed to the world both the fallibility of President Clinton as a human being, and his resilience as a matador.
Chinedu Moghalu Lagos, Nigeria,
I read with interest the excerpts from Michael Isikoff’s book “Uncovering Clinton” (“The Right Wing Web”). I believe that the scandal started not with a right-wing web but with the president in the Oval Office, using a young woman to meet his sexual desires and then choosing to cover it up instead of being honest about it.
Julie Kirkland Dodoma, Tanzania
Your article “How Low Can You Go?” (Society & the Arts, Feb. 22) makes fascinating reading. The research Sharon Begley describes tries to explain what life is but does not address the question of what death is. A thought comes to mind: perhaps the “soul” is a collection or a cluster of a magic number of genes, and it keeps alive the organism in which it resides, being kept alive in turn by that organism. Then, at some time, due to some external force, this soul loses one or more of the genes and dies. The organism dies as a result. Is life as simple as that?
Satish Shintre Nancy, France
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has assembled a number of theologians, philosophers, lawyers and ethicists who will perhaps “discover a threat to the view that there is some magic, secret, outside force creating this thing called life.” Compare their problem with this: how many neurons or how much brain mass do you need to have a soul? Well, I think they will “discover” the theory of evolution. Not very original, but better late than never.
Luz Marina Barreto Caracas, Venezuela
Sharon Begley wrote about seeking the fewest genes necessary for life. What is life? It is an irreducible complex system. If one day a scientist assembles some 300 genes to make a living creature, it will not live without the proper mechanisms for feeding and reproduction. It will also need a hull to protect the sensitive genes from a hostile environment. If you remove just one of these elements, the system stops living. Who assembled the first one? There was no scientist around to do it. But there was a creator.
Hansruedi Stutz Dietikon, Switzerland
Besides raising questions about the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, your Feb. 22 special report, “The Haunted,” poses a more general problem: can any nation in the world claim to stand alone for the values the international community holds dear, such as democracy and human rights? The United States did it in Vietnam in the ’60s, as did the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the ’80s. Both failed, and afterward the target countries went through war and dictatorship, respectively. Even though it is necessary for all governments to stand for civil liberties and social progress, this must be done through the United Nations, never unilaterally. Otherwise, liberty and progress become conditional and, thus, flawed.
Bernhard J. Henry Garches, France
I was astonished to read that the German government agreed to reroute traffic around Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate to meet the new security standards established for U.S. embassies (“Berlin: A Safe Embassy?” Periscope, Jan. 25). This leaves the Pariser Platz and the nearby buildings partly inaccessible and the traffic layout awfully asymmetric. So the real question is not “What is the price of security at American embassies?” but rather “What is the price of having an American embassy at a historical site?”
Bernhard Dietrich Berlin, Germany
While Indonesia has shifted east Timor’s leader Xanana Gusmo to house arrest, he still remains a prisoner (“The Prisoner of Hope,” Asia, Feb. 22). If Indonesia is serious about allowing a peaceful transition in East Timor, President Habibie should free Gusmo so he can travel and consult his people and participate directly in U.N. talks on his nation’s fate. Also, Indonesia must allow multinational observers to monitor human-rights violations and to verify Indonesian troop withdrawals and the disarmament of Indonesian-created militias, now terrorizing the population.
John M. Miller Brooklyn, New York
I disagree with your characterization of the military agents of terror in East Timor as “rogue military elements.” It is misleading to refer to “warring factions” and a potential “civil war” without describing the Indonesian military’s role in supporting armed militias that are killing civilians and driving thousands from their homes. Amnesty International noted in a January report that, “although the authorities blame the killings on conflicts between opponents and supporters of East Timorese independence… the attacks have been provoked by the security forces, which have trained and armed paramilitary groups in East Timor.” During the occupation, in which more than 200,000 East Timorese have been killed, these tactics have been the norm. Given the U.S. government’s unfortunate role in supporting the 24-year occupation of East Timor, the State Department should do its utmost to see that the U.N. sends monitors to East Timor to protect the population from further military and paramilitary attacks.
Ben Terrall San Francisco, California
I was much taken by Klaus Schwab’s support for education as the answer to global poverty (“The Realities of Globalism,” Interview, Feb. 1). For too long, well-intentioned Westerners have regarded democracy as the panacea for all global illnesses. But democracy will ultimately not prosper in countries wrecked by poverty and ignorance. Developing countries experience the inverse relationship between promoting democracy on the one hand and securing the economic needs of the people on the other. Dividing the world into democracies, semi- and nondemocracies artificially distracts attention from the urgency of improving the economic conditions of the poor, who make up the majority of mankind.
John Teo Sarawak, Malaysia
Just because Europeans bought magazines with Clinton on the cover does not mean that they took the impeachment scandal any more seriously than Americans did, despite what Michael Elliott argues in his column “Thank God That’s Over” (World View, Feb. 22). A lot of the European press coverage of Clinton’s impeachment focused on the American obsession with this scandal, trying to understand what all the fuss was about. (What’s so strange about a politician’s having a fling with a younger woman and lying about it?) Europeans may not appreciate America’s infatuation with the “rule of law,” but they do recognize a strong leader when they see one, and they aren’t going to let this sham impeachment trial dampen their enthusiasm for Clinton. Moreover, his survival only strengthens his image in the eyes of the world.
Dana Leff Sofia, Bulgaria
Michael Elliott may be surprised to learn that many more people than he imagines do not at all believe that the United States is “the best defender of free minds and free markets.” What about vital American support over decades to regimes that prevented free minds from breathing? Also, right now, an increasing swath of humanity is suffering the opposite of prosperity by following American-prescribed free-market policies. These are palpable proofs that contradict Elliott’s beliefs. As to “equality under the law,” I simply wonder how many black Americans–an unwholesomely large percentage of whom languish in jails, often on not serious offenses–would agree with him.
Kapil Kitchlu Brussels, Belgium
I disagree with Elliott’s conclusion that the handling of the Lewinsky affair and the freedom of the press have done the world a disservice. The Republican House managers used power to check power. They are the enfants terribles of today who will turn out to be national heroes in history. From now on, public officers will have to watch their actions in office, and the legislative branch will be ready to deal with such actions with determination and thoroughness.
Chika Ukwuoma London, England
Michael Elliott’s article was thought-provoking. To us non-Americans, Americans seem like aliens in their attitudes. In the past year, they staged an unnecessary, expensive drama.
K. Ravindran Singapore
The language used by Michael Elliott shocked me. His choice of epithets for the Senate (“an awful place” with “sanctimonious,” “forgettable bores” and “frauds” who “strut and posture on a memorably ugly carpet” with microphones that remind him of “lavatory chains”) seemed as disgraceful to his profession as the U.S. Senate and Congress’s behavior in the Lewinsky affair. Bill Clinton’s own behavior is even more disgraceful. Can we have more polite behavior and language in public life, please?
Tony Oteng-Gyasi Accra, Ghana
First, I was appalled by Michael Elliott’s description of Clinton’s troubles as “the silly scandal.” To me they represent a new low point in the moral degradation of America. At least some people had the guts to try to do what was right, regardless of the polls. Howard Fineman’s portrayal of Clinton as a “winner” and a “router of his foes” is a mystery to me (“The Survivor,” U.S. Affairs, Feb. 22). How can anyone in this whole mess possibly be a winner? Is this NEWSWEEK’s effort to rehabilitate Clinton? Is he some kind of warrior I should respect? Is his approval rating really the bottom line? Your coverage saddens me. There is nothing noble or admirable here. How empty life would be if the “bottom line” really were approval ratings.
Clive McClelland Metro Manila, Philippines
Thanks, NEWSWEEK, for Kenneth Woodward’s fine article on Pope John Paul II’s visit to Mexico and the United States (“The Holy Grandfather,” Society & the Arts, Feb. 8), in which he points out the popularity the pope enjoys among young Catholics. With his energy unbroken in spite of a sinister illness, and the righteousness he inspires, this pope once again has declared himself against the culture of death by criticizing abortion, the death penalty and all sorts of violence.
Christof Ohnesorge Fulda, Germany
The spate of attacks by mobs against Christians in India and Indonesia is cause for alarm (“Flames of Faith,” Asia, Jan. 25). The respective governments have been unable to curb religious strife. This fuels the suspicion that their benign stance merely serves to deflect public criticism. Religious intolerance and bigotry have no place in this civilized world. The United Nations should be prepared to censure governments that cannot guarantee the safety of religious minorities.
Apolonio G. Ramos Metro Manila, Philippines
