Molly Ivins June 15

"They say guns don't kill people. Oh, I think they have something to do with it. I mean, if a kid just points his finger and says 'BANG,' not much happens." -- Eddie Izzard, British comedian, during an attempt to understand American culture

AUSTIN, Texas — The U.S. House is set to debate a "gun-control" bill that simply overturns the gun-control measures passed by the Senate a few weeks ago.

Same old story — the National Rifle Association got to them. You have to say one thing for NRA members: They will take pen in hand and write their elected representatives. The NRA also gives big campaign contributions, of course, and goes after politicians who vote against its policies.

It's a classic example of how a single-issue, high-intensity minority can drive the political system, no matter what the majority wants. Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Bill McCollum of Florida simply re-wrote the Senate bill to take care of the NRA's objections, and the result is a nothing bill.

The NRA has been running its old scare tactic with its members: "They're going to take our guns away, they're going to take our guns away!" This is the most alarmist bunch since Paul Revere went for a horse ride.

What the Senate bill tries to do is keep guns out the hands of kids and criminals. The extent to which the NRA has become the criminals' best friend is a sight to behold. Whether it's a limit on number of guns purchased per month, background checks, gun shows subject to regulation — you name it, the NRA is opposed.

There IS one way to stop the NRA, of course. If you think it's a good idea to close the loophole that allows people to buy guns at gun shows with no background check, you have to take pen or telephone in hand and contact your elected representative. Fax and e-mail also work.

Why not make this your summer gesture of good citizenship? That and cleaning up a little beach litter will get you a gold star.

Speaking, as we were, of the peculiarities of American culture, Mr. Izzard is, understandably, having a little trouble grasping the intricacies of our late Monicagate psychodrama.

"You have murder one, murder two, manslaughter," he noted. "You have no difficulty making distinctions between different kinds of murder.

Why can't you make distinctions between different kinds of perjury? Perjury One would be claiming that the Holocaust never happened and 6 million people weren't deliberately killed. Perjury Nine would be lying about shagging an intern."

Hearing anyone make a joke about Monicagate that was not at Bill Clinton's expense was so unexpected that it gave me a jolt. We don't hear much of that, do we? Contemplating the state of Clinton's reputation with some detachment is a remarkable experience. Perhaps one has to be a foreigner to do it.

The Clinton haters simply will not be pacified. I have never seen anything like it. It seems to me that it is one thing to hold Clinton in dis-esteem or contempt over what Izzard calls Perjury Nine but quite another matter to consider his actions on something like Kosovo. That the Clinton haters in Congress and the media were unable to differentiate speaks very poorly of them.

Perhaps the most telling moment for the Clinton haters came when the Kosovo matter was resolved in what seems to be the best way out of an impossible situation. Given the sheer grimness of the Kosovar mess itself, getting almost everything we wanted in the settlement does not call for victory parades or those dreadful "We're No. 1!" demonstrations we're apt to pull after a win at the Olympics. We have, on the whole, behaved quite well in the face of this pathetic victory. We know perfectly well that this is not a "win"; there has been little gloating and a great recognition of how sad all this is.

What was telling about the Clinton haters was how pathetically few of them could stand to give Clinton any credit for the resolution. Sen. John McCain and journalist Tony Snow were both classy enough to admit that they had been wrong about the strategy — bombing alone did work in this case.

I can find no one else who has apologized at all for 79 days of constant bombing of Bill Clinton. The criticism was so vicious and relentless that I wrote a column about it a few weeks after the bombing started — and after Monicagate, I was inured to attacks on Clinton. The only media voice I could find that has been raised to thank the president for having played a fairly good hand in a truly awful game was that of Anthony Lewis of The New York Times.

We find the rest of the models of graciousness in the media still whining: "Well, he never should have said he wouldn't use ground troops; why won't he admit that? Why won't he say he was wrong?" He must think he's a pundit. Being a pundit means never having to say you're sorry.

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 1999 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.