The question of George W. Bush's Vietnam War era Air National Guard service has created what I think may be a"teachable moment" for historians. In response to allegations that Bush failed to fulfill his service obligations (and I'm a little intrigued by the casual nature of his tenure, even accepting the most generous interpretations offered by Bush's defenders), the administration (shouldn't the campaign be handling this?) has released his pay records for the 1972-1973 period. But, as Anne Zook Peevishly points out, "just because you're being paid doesn't mean you've done any work." And NYTimes reports that"it was possible to be paid in 1972 and 1973 without actually turning up for the service dates because of relaxed record keeping at the time."

So, how do we evaluate these sources? As historians, we frequently address questions where the sources are ambiguous, incomplete; we are selective about sources and we weigh some sources as being more reliable than others. We evaluate sources, like the pay records, in the light of other sources, like the recollections of peers. We weigh negative results, like none of his supervising officers remembering him, against the fragility and flexibility of human memory. We evaluate institutional acts, like an honorable discharge, in the context of social realities, like Bush's high standing and connections.

This goes to the heart of historical epistemology: how do we know? At what point is the dividing line between a conclusion and a fact? This is a fabulous moment for anyone teaching historiography or historical method this semester. Unfortunately, I'm deep in the middle of World Civ and Japanese Women's History, neither of which leave me a lot of time for epistemological musing, but I could bring it up with my thesis advisees or the History Club.