The Hackery of Machan

In a recent editorial entitled "The Incompetence of Rather," Tibor R. Machan, who bears the impressive title of "R.C. Hoiles Chair in business ethics and free enterprise at Chapman University in Orange, California," takes to task the long-time CBS anchorman for the part he played in the scandal over forged documents related to Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.

Machan notes that Rather testified he "still believes that the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." These assertions by Rather are "preposterous," says Machan. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of counter-evidence." Machan complains that Bush is presumed guilty by Rather, is forced to prove his innocence, to "prove a negative." This is very bad form indeed for any respectable journalist.

It appears to me, though, the Machan is deliberately conflating two claims by Rather. I agree that it is preposterous for Rather to continue to insist that the documents are not forgeries. They clearly are. That this is the case, however, does not mean that their "content"--what they suggest about Bush's National Guard service--is not true. If "content" refers to the claim that Bush blew off the final year of his Guard service, that claim may very well be, probably is, true, though the documents CBS produced to "prove" this claim may be fraudulent.

An analogy: I can believe that Mark Fuhrman was a real sleazeball, a bad cop who planted evidence to try to get O.J. Simpson convicted of murdering his wife. I can believe this and still believe, as most reasonable people do, that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife.

It appears to me the Bushites are very much interested in encouraging the sort of logical confusion that Machan deliberately fosters here. They are hoping the John Q. Public will assume that, since the documents meant to prove that Bush behaved irresponsibly were fraudulent, then there must be no truth to the claim the Bush was a naughty boy. But clearly he was. If Bush did not blow off the final year of his Guard service, why does he not produce evidence of this? How difficult could it be to find one person who remembers serving with him at that time? To continue to claim that it is possible that Bush did his Guard duty in full is just as "preposterous" a position as any Machan blasts Rather for taking.

Another thing. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of evidence." I think it impossible that Mr. Machan could write those words and not hear in them the echo of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous gloss on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." What Machan accuses Rather of doing to Bush--of presuming him guilty and making him prove his innocence--is precisely what Bush and his men did to Saddam Hussein. They accused him of having weapons and demanded that he prove that he did not--to prove a negative. Of course we know now that Saddam was being put in an impossible position since the weapons did not exist. Machan writes, "such a defendant would have no way to go about showing that none of these things happened since in order to do so, one would need to know what evidence exists for the claim. But none had been provided." What solid evidence did the Bush administration provide that Saddam possessed WMD? None. The best it could do was the dog-and-pony show poor Colin Powell was forced to put on at the United Nations -- not exactly one our our country's finest moments.

"Dan Rather," writes Machan, "appears to believe that whenever someone says something damning about people he doesn't much like, that must be 'right on the money,' simply because no one has proven it wrong." Once again, how can Machan not observe that this precisely describes Bush's attitude toward Saddam, a person Bush "doesn't like much," to put it mildly ("This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"). Bush didn't much like Saddam, therefore the claim that he possessed WMD must be "right on the money." Bush didn't much like Saddam, so the claim that he was in bed with Osama bin Laden must be valid. And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Machan concludes that "Dan Rather should be fired" for his misbehavior. Allowing him to retire early, apparently, was not enough; a much greater mess should be made of him. So how about Bush? As for Rather's ethical lapse, what damage did it do, except to his own and his news organization's credibility? Compare that to the damage caused by Bush's lapse: thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars down the drain, and our country's reputation in the world a smoking ruin.