RatherGate Revisited

I was blogless at the time of the whole memo-gate thingy, but I vaguely remember having something to say about it then. We'll see what I can reconstruct.

For many reasons, I take the use and misuse of documents very seriously. I am, professionally, responsible for the care and maintenance of thousands, if not millions of documents. I am responsible to my employer and history at large for preserving the historical record. As a trained (sit, boy, sit! Good grad student) historian, the records of the past mean a great deal to me. They represent what is often our only vision into the past, and future interpretation depends on the records we leave behind. I'm well aware that history is flexible, historical fashion changes, and the records themselves are not perfectly reliable.

That said, Rather's actions regarding that memo strike me as extra reprehensible. I don't understand why the man would risk his reputation on clear forgeries. I don't understand how he could claim any objectivity at all. I don't know what his beef with the administration was. But I admit to being most offended by the manipulation of the historical record by Dan and others to smear a sitting president. Have we lost all respect for the presidency that they we are prepared to accept any insult provided by what were laughably amateur forgeries? Are people so determined to defeat George Bush that they are prepared to manipulate history? All of this from the side of the political aisle that's supposed to be more intellectual?

I know the answers to all of these is yes. I'm not surprised by it, particularly. But I am disappointed in a lot of people, and disheartened by the nature of modern political disagreement.