BILL CLINTON AND THE DRAFT FLAP: THE WRONG ISSUE

Four years ago, it was Dan Quayle who was being accused of having dodged the draft by using his influence to get into the Indiana National Guard. It took until now for the Washington Post to confirm what should have been clear all along: It was a bum rap. It wasn`t necessary to pull strings to get into that Guard unit; there were empty slots at the time. And joining the National Guard risked being called up, just as staying in the draft pool did. Dan Quayle was just one more victim of pack journalism; the only aspect of this story the Post didn`t stress was that it had led the pack.

Now it`s a Democratic presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, who`s being Dan-Quayled. (”Report: Clinton Averted Draft During Vietnam”) It seems that back in 1969, he got a draft deferment on the strength of having told the Army that he planned to enroll in ROTC at the University of Arkansas. Within three months, he backed out, lost his deferment, and found himself again in the draft pool. A couple of months later, a lottery was instituted to select draftees, and young Clinton drew a number that kept him out of the Army. (Even at that, he might have been drafted the following spring if Richard Nixon hadn`t decided to Vietnamize the war, which meant fewer American troops would be needed.)

If this was all some kind of clever plot on Bill Clinton`s part to stay out of the service, he would have had to be clairvoyant to foresee all these developments.

Far from dodging the draft, young Clinton subjected himself to it again when he decided not to take ROTC. If he had stayed with the program, he could have avoided the draft for the next three years, not just for less than three months. There was nothing unusual about being reclassified in those years, depending on whether one was in or out of ROTC, in or out of the Reserves or the National Guard, or in or out of luck.

Essentially, Bill Clinton is being accused of having been lucky. The worst thing that can be said of him in this case is that, as a 22-year-old, he broke his word to an ROTC recruiter. If so, he took the consequences; he was subjected to the draft again. That`s quite different from, say, a governor promising a whole state not to run for another office during the next four years before doing so. That broken promise of his to the voters of Arkansas is a legitimate issue. This 20-year old draft reclassification isn`t.

Bill Clinton was no war hero, and he never claimed to be. But he`s no draft dodger, either, any more than Dan Quayle was. By now this old charge has been refuted so often in Arkansas that it`s not so much news as history. At least the unconvincing tale Gennifer Flowers told about him was real, genuine, juicy mud. This latest smear is but some dry old dustballs that have been swept out from under the bed once again-even if they`re gussied up with a few new accusations and the imprimatur of the Wall Street Journal.

Not for the first time, the great quadrennial circus that is an American presidential election is being reduced to a peep show. A candidate`s conduct more than two decades ago is being taken out of the context of those times, subjected to a different set of standards (the lawyers call this kind of judgment ”ex post facto”) and his reputation left under a vague but damaging cloud.

Bill Clinton knows how this process works; he did much the same thing to Sheffield Nelson, his Republican rival in Arkansas`s last gubernatorial election. By putting his own spin on a decade-old business deal, Bill Clinton managed to tar his opponent without having to offer proof. Of course he didn`t do it alone. He had the help of Nelson`s critics and competitors-and from the usual gaggle of gullibles in the press corps who will believe anything about someone rich or prominent so long as it`s scandalous. Now Bill Clinton is getting the same treatment.

(By the way, note how a couple of his Democratic rivals for the presidential nomination-Bob Kerrey and Tom Harkin-are deftly using this foul accusation without actually endorsing it. Clever. And low.)

Of course this latest dustup isn`t quite the same as Bill Clinton`s sandbagging his old rival. Back in 1990, he used his power as governor to appoint a small, discreet lynch mob in the guise of a special public commission to investigate his opponent`s conduct. It proceeded to smear its victim without actually finding him guilty of anything.

There is a terribly raw justice to life; it`s remarkable how often we reap what we sow, as the Book says. Just when Bill Clinton may think he`s buried his disgraceful role in the Arkla-Arkoma ”investigation,” its memory returns at the most inopportune moment-like Banquo appearing at the feast.

But the irony of it all does not excuse a responsible press from the duty to separate accusation from proof, and speculation from fact. There`s a lot of dust here (much of it recycled) but nothing more. And no one, including Bill Clinton, should be condemned on the basis of old dirt freshly disinterred.