Impeachment farce.

We are no fans of Bill Clinton. His facile lying has always bothered us, along with his crass politics--abolishing welfare, approving the death penalty, intruding on civil liberties, circumventing campaign-finance laws, lobbying for the arms companies.

But the prospect of an impeachment proceeding gives us the creeps. Rightwing forces have clearly set out to accomplish what they could not accomplish at the polls: the ruination of the Clinton Presidency. Linda Tripp, the Paula Jones lawyers, and Kenneth Starr--all of the aggressive right--sprang a trap on Clinton.

It is time to step back and get some perspective. Prosecuting people for lying about sex in a dismissed civil suit is almost unheard of. Why, then, should Congress consider impeaching a President for this?

That makes no sense at all.

Even if Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, even if he lied under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit, even if he made ambiguous comments that could be construed as suborning perjury or obstructing justice, his actions would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Impeachment is the gravest act Congress can take to rein in a renegade President. It should be used only when the acts of the President are so serious as to render the President unfit for office or so threatening as to jeopardize our democracy.

Lying about sex in a civil suit is not a high crime. It does not threaten our constitutional balance of power. It does not even resemble the illegality and the abuse of power that Richard Nixon engaged in during Watergate.

Nixon personally arranged blackmail payments for E. Howard Hunt in the White House. He also corrupted the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA in his criminal cover-up, bringing them all in on the deal.

Now that's obstruction of justice.

He also ran an illegal "Plumbers" operation from the White House to spy on, infiltrate, and undermine his enemies. The Plumbers broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and Nixon ordered them to steal documents from the Brookings Institution.

Now that's criminal activity.

In case you've forgotten, here's a flavor of Nixon's criminality, an excerpt from a conversation he had on June 30, 1971, with Haldeman in the Oval Office (courtesy of Stanley Kutler's book Abuse of Power):

NIXON: I WANT BROOKINGS. I WANT THEM JUST TO BREAK IN AND TAKE IT OUT. Do YOU UNDERSTAND?

HALDEMAN: YEAH. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY TO DO IT.

NIXON: THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. DON'T DISCUSS IT HERE. You TALK TO HUNT. I WANT THE BREAK-IN. ... YOU'RE TO BREAK INTO THE PLACE, RIFLE THE FILES, AND BRING THEM IN.

Or consider the more famous exchange with John Dean on March 21, 1973, about responding to Hunt's blackmail threats after Hunt was convicted in the Watergate burglary.

NIXON: YOUR FEELING IS THAT WE JUST CAN'T CONTINUE TO, TO PAY THE BLACKMAIL OF THESE GUYS? DEAN: I THINK THAT'S OUR GREATEST JEOPARDY. NIXON: NOW, LET ME TELL YOU IT'S ... NO PROBLEM, WE COULD, WE COULD GET THE MONEY. THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN THAT. WE CAN'T PROVIDE THE CLEMENCY. THE MONEY CAN BE PROVIDED.

Clinton's alleged indiscretions revolve around a sleazy affair--hardly a matter of great national concern. The investigation itself has been filled with graver violations, including the invasion of privacy and the leaking of grand jury information. Lewinsky was taped and betrayed by her erstwhile friend and confidante, Linda Tripp. Those recordings may have been illegal. Start has used the evidence of this affair, including those dubious tapes, to ensnare Clinton.

The American people are sick of this kind of intrusiveness. They're tired of the whole scandal and want to move on to more important matters. And who can blame them?

An impeachment proceeding would be a ridiculous and futile spectacle. Do we really want to paralyze the country for another year or more while Congress listens to tawdry detail after tawdry detail about what Monica Lewinsky did with Bill Clinton and where? Are we going to be forced to listen to the tapes of Lewinsky confiding to the double-crosser Tripp? Must we watch as they again trot out the infamous stained dress?

Imagine the history books twenty, thirty, 100 years from now. Won't it seem awfully silly to read that Congress considered impeaching a President over sex and lies with a White House intern?