In 2004, the TV news show 60 Minutes reported that President George W. Bush had shirked his duties in the Texas Air National Guard back in 1973. The host of 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, offered as evidence four documents showing military leaders’ unsatisfactory appraisals of Bush.

Bush joined the National Guard to avoid the draft and the possibility of being sent to Vietnam. No one has denied that. But Bush insisted that he served honorably in the Guard. The 60 Minutes report implied he didn’t. It was a big deal, because it aired just two months before a presidential election in which Bush was seeking re-election.

Soon after the broadcast, experts cried foul. They said Rather had based his criticism of the president on faked documents. The argument that the documents were fake claimed that they were typed on a typewriter that didn’t exist in 1973.

Specifically, the documents included a passage stating “Bush wasn’t here during the rating period and I don’t have any feedback from the 187th in Alabama.” The “th” after the number was superscripted, and that was the giveaway. Old typewriters didn’t do superscripts. So it appeared that the documents were forged. 60 Minutes was accused of either forging the documents, or of being fooled into using them.

In fact, at least one electric typewriter available in 1973 (the IBM Selectric) did do superscripting. So it was just a question of asking whether or not the Texas Air National Guard headquarters had an IBM Selectric typewriter in 1973. By 2004, nobody could remember or prove that it did or didn’t.

After a period of headscratching, the veracity of the documents remained in dispute. No one could prove they were real; no one could prove they were forged.  The CBS network president went on the air and said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

CBS turned the botched report into a self-congratulatory affirmation of their journalistic integrity. Several people got fired or forced to resign. One of them published a memoir. There was a movie starring Robert Redford. Dan Rather sued 60 Minutes for allowing him to look stupid on TV, but his case was dismissed. George W. Bush got reelected.

Setting aside the whole 60 Minutes hubbub, there is plenty of evidence that Bush was a bad serviceman. Bush went into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid the draft, and his congressman father pulled strings to help him do it. Midway through his service as a pilot, he was permanently grounded. He quit the Guard early.  He was honorably discharged, but that only proves he did the minimum – or perhaps only that he got credit for doing the minimum. It does not prove he served with honor or distinction.

Author Elizabeth Moon, who is a military veteran, commented harshly about Bush’s military record. He got credit for more than he deserved, according to Moon. She was especially critical of Bush for insisted that scrutinizing his record was disrespectful of al military personnel:

“George W. Bush claims that questioning the validity of his service in the Texas Air National Guard insults the men and women who have served there and been in combat. This is a disgusting perversion of the truth. It is he and other draft dodgers, with the connivance of Texas government (including the governor who wouldn't release the unit to the military and the individuals who jumped Bush over the waiting list to get him in) who sullied the honor of the National Guard here in Texas, and in other states where a politically-motivated governor allowed this injustice to occur. It is he and the others like him who insult and dishonor those who served honorably before and after this shameful period, those who actually put their lives on the line. Because of him and men like him, others were drafted into the service and sent into combat in their place.”

Our concern here is not about Bush, but about the doubt that remains in the case. There is a truth that does not hinge on opinion or political expediency. It does not depend on whether we like Bush or not. Either Bush served honorably or he didn’t, and his superiors either disapproved of his performance or they didn’t. Only 47 years have passed, and nearly everyone involved remains alive. But the truth seems undiscoverable.

The 60 Minutes report failed by the standards of good journalism. But 60 Minutes’ failure to prove Bush shirked isn’t sufficient proof that he didn’t. Plenty of people, such as Moon, continue to say he did. This story teaches us about something called  “The Fallacy Fallacy.” A mistake in proof can never be taken as disproof. Through its sloppy reporting, 60 Minutes failed to prove the allegations against Bush. That failure has taken on outsized important, and many people today insist Bush was exonerated despite plenty of other evidence stacked against him.

Think:

• Have you ever encountered “the Fallacy Fallacy?” Has anyone ever tried to convince you that, because a thing was not true in a single instance, that it was not true ever?

• Does it seem reasonable to you that the head of the CBS network disavowed the 60 Minutes report?

• Should presidents and other public officials be required or expected to have military service? Why did Bush’s record in the Texas National guard matter, anyway?