Pass the salt. And a little ketchup, too, if you don't mind.

I'll need something to help mask the taste of the crow I'll have to eat once the Senate drives a stake through the heart of the effort to return a sense of dignity and honor to the institution of the presidency later this week.

I'll endure the barbs and the gloating, I'll suffer through the "I told you so," and "Can we move on, at last?" comments.

To my friends and colleagues who have stood by Bill Clinton (I will never call him president again, he will never again deserve to be referred to as my president) as he slipped the noose of conviction in the Senate, I want to remind them of where I've been in the controversy from the start.

On July 31 last year, I wrote in this space:

"Is it really OK to lie just because you are accused of wrongdoing by someone who is unpopular or less attractive than the average beauty queen?

"I sure hope not. But the recent polls aren't encouraging.

"But, if that is really true, we all have lost something special about being Americans ... and we all should be ashamed."

It appears that the Senate and a solid majority of the American public disagree. As my boss has reminded me many times since the fiasco started, "You have to remember, Beall, the simple rule that applies here is, 'Democrat ... GOOD, Republican ... BAD.' "

So be it. But don't let it be said that I didn't see the writing on the wall, even if I held out hope for the collective wisdom of our unique society to come through.

On Aug. 27, just over a week after the president committed the offenses for which he was impeached, I wrote:

"No. Politics will reign supreme in the most political of political institutions.

"You'd like to think that allowing these crass political considerations to let a perjurer, and obstructionist of our justice system, go unsanctioned would embarrass our elected representatives in Washington.

"But it won't."

There were, however, times when I thought principle might win out at the end of the day. When the Office of Independent Counsel submitted its report on possible impeachable offenses Clinton was alleged to have committed, I was sure the American people would wake up.

On Sept. 15, just after the report from the Office of Independent Counsel was released, and Clinton was begging for his political life whenever anyone was within earshot, I wrote:

"Contrition doesn't alleviate the need to be punished for wrongdoings.

"Yes, we can accept the president's apology. We can empathize with the pain of his embarrassment. We can stand by him in his efforts to rebuild his standing and reputation. We can pray for him as he heals the wounds he's caused in his marriage and to his family and friends.

"And we must still insist that he be held accountable for the wrongs he has committed. Criminal wrongs. Wrongs that require sanction. Wrongs that warrant him leaving his office - either voluntarily, which would be better for the country, or involuntarily through the proceedings now under way in Congress."

But those proceedings were turned into a partisan circus by the congressional Democrats. They refused to address the facts raised in the OIC report, but rather attacked the report and attacked Republicans for even considering the seriousness of charges raised within it.

This is not to say there weren't partisan motivations on the part of the congressional Republicans. To be sure, there were. But when viewed from the purely political standpoint, the Republicans were willing to take a beating in the public opinion polls to stand on the principle - that the chief executive shouldn't be allowed to subvert the judicial system for whatever reason.

No one has been able to articulate any principled position the Democrats were defending. If there is one, I wish they'd point it out to me. It seemed to me that all they could say was that he was being treated unfairly, expected to live by a standard of law nobody could reasonable be expected to meet. A claim I addressed as the impeachment vote was still fresh in everyone's mind.

On Dec. 23, just after the House of Representatives impeached the Clinton, the first elected president to ever have such an action taken against him, I wrote:

"Whatever happens to President Clinton in this current debacle won't be unfair. What's been unfair is what he did to Paula Jones, what he did to Monica Lewinsky, what he's done to Hillary and Chelsea - what he's done to all of us.

"Impeachment wasn't unfair and it isn't unspeakable. The only thing that has been unspeakable in this whole matter has been the truth from the mouth of the president.

"And now it's time for the Senate to restore the integrity of the Oval Office President Clinton so cavalierly discarded."

Now, it's become eminently clear that the Senate is more concerned with having this matter "dealt with expeditiously" than with meting out impartial justice. It seems they will be disposing with the articles of impeachment without any serious consideration of the facts and the law.

So, I was wrong.

Wrong in my hope that the American people would hold Clinton to the high standards his office requires. Wrong for thinking that there were men and women of principle in Congress, who would do the duty the Constitution clearly spells out for them.

But to those who will say, "I told you so" and "Now, let's move on," I have but one word of advice.

Prepare yourself to eat those words, just as I've had to eat mine. Because one day, the new, lowered standards you have propagated through your support for Clinton and his "irresponsible, reprehensible and immoral acts" will come back to haunt you. And you'll have no one but yourselves to blame.

I'll keep the salt and ketchup handy. Bon appetit. [[In-content Ad]]