. . . And Impeachment Drive Blunders On

Until the U.S. missile and air strikes on Iraq Wednesday, the impeachment express was roaring toward a momentous vote in the House of Representatives, possibly as early as this evening. It still appears to be unstoppable even with the bipartisan postponement of the House vote. Perhaps the delay might provide room for brokering a resolution that would settle the House’s case against President Clinton with a stern public censure for his abominable behavior in the Monica Lewinsky affair. That is the sensible way to handle the matter, and the course favored by most Americans.

But everything Clinton does these days seems suspect, or at best poorly timed. On Wednesday some Republican leaders heatedly accused the president of timing the Iraq strike to suit his political needs. Their verbal attacks on Clinton surely were intemperate, a reflection of their divining of the president’s motives. But so bizarre is this whole affair that these are the sort of passions that could doom Clinton’s effort to stave off impeachment.

Still, every effort to reach a bipartisan settlement should be made before the campaign for impeachment causes a potential constitutional catastrophe.

The conservative Republicans who control the House are not concerned with saving the union from any supposed crisis. They are bent on punishing Clinton by removing him from office. Faced with such pressures, moderate Republicans continued to tumble into the impeachment camp Wednesday. It’s clear that many Republicans preferred the option of a censure vote, but they were not being given that chance by Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.). Thus, they were left with little choice. How could they defend a vote that might be read as support for the moral corruption of Bill Clinton? For moderates, there was the suggestion, or fear, that to vote no on impeachment might invite a strong challenge from conservatives in the next Republican primary.

The impeachment drive has become a self-feeding force. At first, experts said not to worry--the House would not vote to impeach. Even if it did, the Senate would never muster the two-thirds margin to convict the president and remove him from office, or it might broker a deal before the issue ever reached the trial stage. These arguments gave moderate Republicans cover to vote for impeachment as a form of super-censure. Along the way, the impeachment fire was fanned by anger and resentment that the president wouldn’t confess to lying under oath.

Now, Republican leaders are saying that if Clinton is impeached, he then should resign to save the nation the agony of a wrenching Senate trial. Even some Democrats are concerned that such a drumbeat could become irresistible. Considering how dramatically the dynamics of the impeachment campaign have changed in just the past two weeks, who can assure Americans that the Senate would not in fact feel compelled to remove Clinton from office?

What is lost in all this is that Clinton’s alleged crimes do not meet the constitutional test of impeachment. They surely are reprehensible, but they do not threaten the stability of the nation or undermine the Constitution. Nor should the president face impeachment because the nature of his apologies does not satisfy his accusers. Nevertheless, the impeachment effort is hurtling along out of control. Congressional leaders should step back and put this matter in its proper context before the House takes its final vote. Then they should devise a way to brake this train.