Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Wed, Jun 17 1992 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 05:19:38 EDT Message-ID: 06-17 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update June 17, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Wednesday morning in USA TODAY: Watergate; Royals; Missiles. TODAY'S DEBATE - POLITICAL SCANDAL: USA TODAY'S OPINION: The indictment Tuesday of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, a day before the 20th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, is a reminder of how vigilantly the nation now watches its public officials. Weinberger - highest official charged in the Iran-contra scandal - was indicted by a special prosecutor, a concept enshrined by the Watergate scandal. Whether or not the indictment proves warranted, the post-Watergate skepticism that led to it - an unwillingness to turn suspicion away from the powerful - is an asset. ... The government is in gridlock. The economy is a mess. And the national election campaign is being waged under a cloud of voter anger and distrust that some people still trace to Watergate. ... Citizen skepticism and careful scrutiny are needed. ... If anything's been learned in the years since Watergate, it is that no reputation, no ideology is worth subverting the laws officials pledge to uphold. The ends do not justify the means. OTHER VIEW: BEN STEIN, Los Angeles writer and economist: Let me make one thing perfectly clear: When we are talking about presidents of the United States, there are no saints. ... Richard M. Nixon was not uniquely blameworthy and, in the last 30 years, might well be considered uniquely praiseworthy. Yes, Nixon apparently used the CIA to cover up White House involvement with at least the bungled earlier cover-up from the mysterious Watergate burglary. But Nixon never used the White House as a bawdyhouse for women of easy virtue. He never consorted with gangsters on high matters of statecraft. ... He never directly mocked congressional will in foreign policy and secretly made deals with the terrorists who murdered innocent children, as Ronald Reagan did. ... Richard Nixon was a gifted, innovative civil servant: He gave us daring new moves on family assistance, law enforcement, aid to education, help for the least among us and, most well known, in ending the Cold War and the war on Vietnam. Watergate was a tragedy - but primarily because it deprived the nation of a great and compassionate leader. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON THE LATEST ROYAL SCANDAL: MOBILE, Ala., Belinda Baggett, 26, public relations spec.: I just love that dirt. The book went on sale Monday. I'm going to buy it. It's tragic and the beginning of the end of the monarchy. These are credible sources and serious allegations. I don't see how a couple can recover from it. They will live very separate lives. SOUTH GATE, Calif., Avelino Andazola, 51, technical director: Which royals? If it's in the newspapers, not a whole lot. If it's on TV, not at all. Are you talking about the divorce of what's-her-name from what's-his-name? I'm not interested. I don't care at all about them. FRAMINGHAM, Mass., Frank J. Colgan, 70, retired salesman: No, I'm really not. I'm not particularly interested in what happens in the royal family. It's their business. They are under enough pressure from the press as it is. I feel the coverage is overdone and feel sorry for them. They live in a glass house. LAFAYETTE, Ind., Mary Helen Goode, 43, property manager: Gossip like that just doesn't interest me. It is unfortunate they have to live in a fishbowl. What I had read was that she had problems with bulimia and anorexia. If that is the case, it's none of our business. Splashing it on TV only compounds the problem. CHAPEL HILL, N.C., Gerald Carr, 32, assistant football coach: I've been watching bits and pieces of it. It just goes to show that no one is perfect. From what we've always been told about royalty, they are supposed to be puritanical, unlike everyone else. But that is not the case. I sympathize with them. TOPIC - ARMS CUTS: Paul Warnke, former chief U.S. arms negotiator and assistant secretary of Defense and founder of the Committee for National Security, was interviewed by USA TODAY's editorial board. WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE WEAPONS BEING CUT? The irony is that they don't serve any purpose. There is absolutely no incentive for the Russians to strike the United States. What they need is Western aid, so from their standpoint they'd be destroying the source of those resources. But there is still the question of prestige. There is still the question of not looking as if they're now a bankrupt country that has to sue for peace. WHY NOT JUST PRESS OUR ADVANTAGE? This is a very important meeting for Yeltsin. On his first trip to the United States, I think a lot of people found him to be a bit of a buffoon and sort of a sad contrast to Mikhail Gorbachev. He needs to establish himself as the leader of what is still a very, very powerful country, so I think it would be a mistake to try to push him too hard. He is probably the best hope we have for a Russia which will be a constructive member of the international community. We ought to treat him well. HOW MANY WARHEADS ARE ENOUGH? Probably something like 1,000 strategic warheads. That is certainly far in excess of any real need. Issues & Debate Editor: Beth Mann. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM