Nightmare may be a test of national sanity

In this surreal month, time has stopped in the nation's capitalwhile the rest of the world is rushing on.

The oldest intact skeleton of early man was found in SouthAfrica. The NBA All-Star game was canceled. Iraq blocked UnitedNations arms inspectors yet again. Mideast peace is hanging by athread. Astronauts are building a space station in space. AndPresident Clinton's futile attempt to deny his lewd behavior is beingused to try to remove him from office.

Despite the lack of public outrage against Clinton, many Housemembers are determined to put a president on trial in the Senate foronly the second time in U.S. history. Andrew Johnson was the first.Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted to impeach him.Clinton will not resign.While the rest of the world gapes in disbelief and the Americanpeople squirm in embarrassment and irritation, the crux of thecharges against Clinton is that he used a tortured definition ofsexual relations developed by lawyers for Paula Jones in anow-defunct sexual harassment lawsuit to justify lying under oathabout sex with Monica Lewinsky.Those who want Clinton removed from office argue that he hassubverted the government and betrayed his trust with the people anddisgraced his office and violated his presidential oath. It is nodefense for Clinton supporters to argue that many other presidentshad much more flagrant illicit sex, because the issue is lying underoath.The stunning stupidity of the president's "fooling around"(Lewinsky's term) with a psychologically insecure young White Houseintern while being sued for sexual harassment is maddening andsaddening.But constitutional lawyers, historians, legislators andAmericans of every stripe disagree on whether the ensuing lies andcover-ups, with many of the alleged facts energetically disputed bythe White House, merit removal from office.In a he-said/she-said dispute over exactly what happened in asexual encounter, how can anyone else know for sure what the exacttruth is? Hearsay is not legal evidence. Sin is not necessarilyimpeachable. Americans have known since Gennifer Flowers thatClinton is not a proper role model.Lawyers furiously debate whether a crime of perjury isimpeachable if proven and how a president's state of mind can beproven and whether an impeachable offense must be a crime. Laymenwonder if this nightmare is some kind of test of national sanity andwhy they should care anymore.CEOs fret that their profits could slide. Foreign leaders worrythat Clinton will not be effective trying to tamp down age-old feudsaround the globe.The national discourse has been coarsened irretrievably.Children make crude playground jokes, and the butt of them is thepresident. TV talk shows have discussed oral sex so indiscriminatelythat it is no longer shocking to hear it.Meanwhile, the wronged wife smiles regally for the cover of afashion magazine and gloats in her new svelteness and popularity.Her husband stands awkwardly beside her, acting sheepish andtentative. Their daughter struggles to cope at school 3,000 milesaway.And meanwhile, the White House is not in a black shroud but isthe glitziest it has been during the Clinton years - shimmery andglamorous in gold, silver and white, thanks to the efforts ofthousands of volunteers. And there was Clinton, lighting thenational Christmas tree on the Mall with baseball great Sammy Sosa.It is somewhat breathtaking to hear the chief White Housecounsel say the president's behavior was "morally reprehensible."Has such a denunciation ever been uttered in public before by peopleworking for a sitting president?Yet those lawyers also insist that while Clinton's overallintention was to mislead and evade, his words themselves were socarefully phrased that they were literally truthful (if oral sex doesnot constitute sexual relations or an affair).On the other hand, it is especially disturbing to onlookers thatthe debate in Congress on impeachment has proceeded along party linesand that people who literally have hated Clinton for years areleading the charge.Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is when membersof Congress debate whether admitting before a grand jury to aninappropriate relationship but denying it was "sexual relations" isgrounds for overturning a national election.Ann McFeatters covers the White House for the Scripps HowardNews Service. E-mail: mcfeattersa@shns.com