The second was, So what - do the concerned party members have good reason to fear the information in the files?

Invariably politicians will try to prove that opponents, including in their own parties, are less than desirable to hold office. Hence, the negative ads and statements that are used to discredit their opponents.

And, of course, we have the l993, 94, 95, and 96 example of Republicans trying to discredit the president through alleged past illegal activities in his home state, the infamous Whitewater case.

Now one must wonder if perhaps the Republican party members who screamed the loudest have dealings they do not want made public. What is it they fear? Isn't it logical, if their pasts are squeaky clean as they should be, each would welcome a public airing of the results of the FBI's findings?

Here is a consideration. Why not require a background check of every person running for public office? Why shouldn't their pasts be made public?

It would remove innuendos and 'alleged' activities. One politician could not use what some consider devious means to gain or keep office. This would mean that the public elected the official regardless, or because of, his past.

That would be more fair to all concerned than the way it is now, finding out after the fact that a politician had a shady past, either before in office or while in office.

Also, the public would have the facts, providing the FBI couldn't be coerciced or bribed into falsifying files. But, since the FBI is a government organization, that is questionable.

As a member of the public, the writer now would like answers to a few questions such as how many politicians, current and past, have been investigated by the FBI. How many administrations have had the information available to them?

If not for the public's use, why has the FBI conducted the investigations? Why shouldn't the President have the right to review any of the information that he deems important? He is, in addition to other duties, ultimately respnsible for national security.

And it is guaranteed that if the government wishes to, it can have you investigated and can make it public. What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

Simply put, what are the facts and why shouldn't the facts be a matter of public record? Why aren't citizens able to request the background information on the politicians when voting decisions are being made?

The presidency, as an example, is an important office. Citizens should have the right to get any facts concerning any politician running for any office, and, for certain, when making the important decision of which person to put in the Oval Office.

Not only that, but your tax dollars paid for the investigations. In order to assure the money has been spent wisely (fat chance with the government, huh?), every file ever developed needs to be publicly reviewed or, at the minimum, made available to the public.

As far as the Privacy Act is concerned, politicians gave up their rights to privacy as soon as they became public figures. Those who do not have any reason to fear their pasts should not have a problem with public disclosure just as the writer doesn't have any problems with businesses doing drug testing.

Besides, Ladies and Gentlemen, how do we know what the Republicans have available to them? Have any of them ever reviewed the background checks on Democrats?

Has any Republican president ever, including before holding office, reviewed the backgrounds of their opponents, especially a man such as Bush who was very high in the CIA?

It has been the writer's contention, along with many other Americans, that Richard Nixon simply got caught doing what both parties had been doing. How can any Republican now prove to us members of his party hasn't read any files the FBI has?

And, again, just who the devil ordered the background checks and why were they ordered? What were the files to be used for? Until we know the answers to those questions, any complaints by the Republican party are for political purpose only or to hide information they do not want made available, not because of any deep concern that the public's trust has been violated.

Besides, public trust isn't an issue when Congress passses bills that removes our privacy rights or when the information is against their opponents. Make them wear the shoes they make for for us for a change.

Special Addendum: Since I wrote this, I eventually became versed enough in computer use that I was able to get on the Internet (December, 1997). It is absolutely appalling as to the private information the government has on each of us it can make use of, and the amount of privacy being removed in the name of "dead-beat Dad's" and the "War Against Drugs".

The government has the potential of tracking every move you make, eventually every product you buy, your banking practices, computer use on the internet (mine is probably monitored due to many anti-government articles that have been published and sent to various members of the 105th Congress, the most wasted Congress in history.

With the evidence available, we are only one or two steps away from being a totalitarian government. Therefore, the Republicans screaming about the files SHOULD be investigated and as rapidly as possible to find out what info they fear being made public.