Letter: Blaming Clinton

Sir: There is much that one could agree with in Jean Bethke Elshtain's commentary "The moral trust between the people and their President" (12 September), and the breach of trust in the standard of behaviour one expects from an American president. However, she does not comment on one of the underlying premises that promoted this disastrous scenario into the public realm in the first place. This of course concerns Starr's behaviour as special prosecutor.

After four years of investigation, with a reputed figure of $40m spent, the inquiry disclosed nothing of importance - no financial irregularities, no swindles in deepest Arkansas - until finally the president was nailed on his one well known and previously virtually admitted failing.

It is this - the central legitimacy of the investigation - and the drawing of a net so wide until finally something discreditable crawled into view that leaves many with a sense of the disproportionate outcome that has followed from a reckless and reprehensible sexual liaison. Understandably, though perhaps unwisely, this was initially denied by Clinton. He may have only himself to blame but it hardly brings any honour on to the man who may prove to be his Nemesis.

RICHARD DE ZOYSA

South Bank University

Division of Politics

London SE1