Just sent this note to Brent Bozell in response to his complaints about Clinton comparing his "draft-dodging" to the Chimp's "service." (At least I think I sent it, but I don't know if the form worked.)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/mailto/newsmail.asp***
Mr. Bozell, what part of the phrase "could have gone to Vietnam" do you not understand? Or is it the term "avoided it" that's difficult for you?
Here is the quote from Clinton's speech I heard you discussing today with Miles O'Brian:
"During the Vietnam War, many young men—including the current president, the vice president and me—could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me."
You seem to think it was audacious of President Clinton to compare his actions during that time to Mr. Bush's actions. In fact, President Clinton is quite correct: both could have gone, and both avoided it. They made the same choice, through different sets of options.
The National Guard, as you certainly look old enough to remember, was a way to avoid going to Vietnam. The Viet Cong wasn't in Texas or Alabama, Mr. Bozell, and Mr. Bush chose not to risk his life. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? (Although how Mr. Bush got into the guard, skipping over a lengthy waiting list, remains unanswered, as do many other questions about his behavior.)
No one who went to Vietnam, however, was sure they'd come back. That is why it's rather extraordinary, and extremely admirable, that a young man with privilege and a degree from Yale made the choice to risk his life by going to Vietnam -- the opposite path of most people at that time, the opposite path of George W. Bush.
You say Clinton can't compare his own choices with Bush's, but in truth, they made the same choice. I say you can't compare Bush's choice with Kerry's. Those were opposite choices, plain and simple.
Sincerely,