GOP LEADERS BLAST TIMING.

Byline: R.W. Apple Jr. The New York Times

It became startlingly clear Wednesday how much the long months of evasion and legalisms, how much his enemies' unceasing denunciations of him as a liar, have cost Bill Clinton and the nation.

Gripped by crisis on two fronts, in Congress and the Middle East, the president came face to face with the stinging reality that his credibility is crumbling, especially but not exclusively among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Some sober, experienced leaders no longer take him at his word. It is a situation he must remedy, and quickly, but it is not clear he can do so.

On a day of truly explosive drama in this politically punch-drunk capital, two of the long-running conflicts of these final years of the old millennium collided with a bang: the Western allies' struggle to contain and disarm resilient President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Clinton's struggle to govern effectively in the face of the assaults of his political foes.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the majority leader, went so far as to publicly question Clinton's motives in ordering attacks on Iraq - a violation of Washington's longstanding political code. You don't criticize the president, that code says, when American forces stand in harm's way.

Norman Schwarzkopf, the retired general who commanded American troops in the Gulf War, joined prominent Democrats in firing back. He said on NBC, ``By golly, troops are committed, and we can't have people second-guessing the way they did in Vietnam.''

Some Republicans were a bit more cautious. The incoming House speaker, Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana, said he would leave questions of presidential motive and timing to the American people. But he pointedly said several times that he supported ``the troops,'' without saying he supported the president.

This was the climax, in a way, of years of deterioration in this city's political civility. The habit of refusing to give one's adversaries the benefit of the doubt, of viewing them as enemies rather than opponents, increasingly ingrained in the congressional culture, has now seized a beachhead in foreign-policy debate.

As the hours passed, on the eve of the scheduled start of the House's first impeachment debate in 130 years, one previously uncommitted Republican after another announced plans to vote against the president. With Clinton's strategy of courting the moderates in ruin, gloom enveloped the White House, and a top Clinton strategist said, ``It's time to think about the Senate and the trial.'' A trial would follow a House vote to impeach the president.

Rep. John Porter, R-Ill., who had announced plans to vote against impeachment, switched sides, and he was joined on the anti-Clinton list by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa. Exaggerating only slightly, a White House aide said, ``If we can't get Leach, we can't get anybody.'' But even as he was speaking, missiles were being readied for launch against Baghdad.

When they struck, and when Clinton made a broadcast justifying his decision to order ``a strong, sustained series of airstrikes'' against Iraq, the Washington political establishment might have been expected to rally behind him. Some spoke out in support, but there was harsh criticism as well, tinged with the suspicion that this was just a ploy to buy time on Capitol Hill.

It was not so much the words but the men who spoke them that rattled the president's inner circle.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has been the prime mover behind impeachment, declared on a television show Sunday that he did not believe anything Clinton said. A few heads snapped back. But DeLay is one of the most partisan and most ideological of the House Republicans, a bit of an outsider, so allowances were made. But Lott and Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., the House Rules Committee chairman, are major establishment figures.

When they expressed doubts about the president's policy itself and about its timing, in full knowledge that the decision to attack had been made, the Washington political community was astonished. Then, not long after the first missile strikes, Lawrence Eagleburger, a career foreign service officer and former secretary of state, said on CNN that he understood why attacks had to be made eventually but thought the timing ``smells to high heaven.''

Lott all but said he did not believe the administration officials who briefed him. Despite their assurances that impeachment had nothing to do with the decision to attack, he declared in a statement, ``Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.''

Solomon said, ``Never underestimate a desperate president.''

It was not clear how long the attacks on Iraq would continue. Both Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger declined to answer the question Wednesday night, and Clinton himself said only that it would have been a mistake to begin the bombing campaign during the Islamic holy month, Ramadan, which begins this weekend. He did not say it could not continue during Ramadan.

If the bombing lasts for only three or four days, Clinton will be accused of making an empty gesture; during the Gulf War, weeks of attacks were required to make limited gains. If it lasts indefinitely, Clinton will be accused of trying to delay the impeachment vote as long as he can.

Buying time might be the president's best hope, if only a very slim one. Pro-impeachment sentiment has reached a peak this week, but it could conceivably dissipate if the roll call is significantly postponed.