President Clinton insists he is not going to resign following the decision by the House of Representatives to impeach him on grounds of perjury and obstructing the course of justice. But his case will become more difficult to sustain the longer the whole process lasts. His search for a formula allowing the Senate to censure him rather than proceed to the full impeachment hearing is based sensibly on this assumption. No contemporary politician is more attuned to the fickleness of public opinion. The sooner the matter is resolved the better it will be for American politics and a world anxious that United States leadership be exerted in a focussed and responsible fashion.
Unprecedented bitterness has characterised the campaign for this impeachment decision, only the second so far in US history. Commentators correctly discern a general coarsening of the country's political fabric in the personal attacks, the win-at-all-costs attitudes and the negative campaigns which have now come to a crescendo. Coming on top of the potentially corrupting effects of the vast amounts of money necessary to fight successful campaigns in the US political system, it is not surprising that this is making for more and more popular disenchantment. Mr Clinton has refused to follow the example of Mr Bob Livingston, the House of Representatives' Republican speaker-elect, who is to resign following revelations that he had adulterous affairs, in a decision that has shocked Washington's political class. Confronted with the prospect of further long exposure to details of the Lewinsky affair, it may well be that public opinion will swing towards the necessity of such a cathartic gesture from Mr Clinton.
Short of that, he still has a strong case to make. His recklessness, dishonesty and political misjudgments throughout the Lewinsky affair deserve censure, not conviction in an impeachment process. On the evidence available, the same applies to the charges of perjury and obstructing the course of justice now formally levelled against him by the decision of the House of Representatives. Political realities of bitter inter-party factionalism determined the outcome rather than calm judgment. There is much to be said for the case that Mr Clinton's domestic reform programme and international commitment are far more important than these two grounds for impeachment. If the US political process continues to be preoccupied with them, lasting damage will be done, not only to its civility, but to its credibility as well.
Internationally this may be seen clearly in the latest US and British military confrontation with Iraq. Now that the air attacks have been called off, it must be assessed critically in the light of strategic objectives as well as Mr Clinton's political motivations. The former leave Iraqi military capacity damaged with as yet unknown civilian casualties; the latter has led to an unprecedented partisan questioning of the attacks in Washington just as they were launched. The United Nations arms inspection operation looks like a casualty of the operation, and the US and Britain are now more explicit about their objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime. This may be their policy, but they have no right or legal basis to arrogate it to themselves or impose it on the United Nations. The damaging suspicion lingers that such unilateral action was motivated in part by Mr Clinton's political difficulties. A long-drawn-out impeachment process would only deepen such international perceptions of US policy in the months to come. All the more reason to clear up this matter with the greatest dispatch.