Quite a few folks have written to argue that Cheney's claim of never meeting Edwards before the debate was a more consequential and deliberate falsehood than I think it is. I picked this message from Richard Bensam to represent this sentiment…
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Cheney saying he had never met Edwards wasn't a meaningless fib or glossing over some trivial detail or even an honest mistake. His allegation was intended as the capstone of Cheney's argument that Edwards is supposedly lacking in legislative experience, and has been largely absent from the Senate, in contrast to Cheney's purportedly tireless service to the nation. Cheney was trying to build a case against Edwards and used this claim they'd never met before as the clincher in his argument. It was no small matter, but immediately relevant to tearing down his opponent. But it was a lie.
Did Cheney himself feel that his case against Edwards was so weak that it needed to be bolstered with a lie that he imagined no one would bother to check? It's hard to imagine this could have been an honest mistake, given how long Edwards has been in the race, and how long Cheney has known he'd eventually be facing the senator in a televised debate. Can we really believe that he never once sat down and thought about any past encounters he'd had with Edwards, or asked an aide to research any past dealings they may have had?
And will Cheney step forward, now that the world knows he met Edwards on at least three separate occasions, and admit that he said something that was untrue, deliberately or not? That in itself would be a big step forward. Bush and Cheney have set themselves up as the people who never make mistakes, who never misstate things, and who would do everything exactly the same if they had it to do all over again. This has become their trademark. They act that way whether the topic is Iraq or Osama bin Laden or meeting John Edwards.
So, it's not some theory about small lies being equivalent to big lies that makes this important. It's important because this is what Cheney does every chance he gets.
Actually, I think Cheney might admit his mistake on this one. If I were slimy and in his position, I'd apologize for the error and say something like, "I guess I only remember Senators who've actually accomplished something in their terms of office." Then I could stick the knife in again and at the same time, maybe counteract a bit of the claim that I never admit mistakes. It would enable my supporters to say, "Hey, when Dick Cheney makes an error, he owns up to it."
Yes, I absolutely believe Cheney said it to tear down his opponent. But I also don't believe he said it, knowing it was untrue and that no one would bother to check. First of all, both men had to know that every syllable they uttered in that arena would be checked, cross-checked and placed under an electron microscope. Cheney especially knew that because his crew did that to Al Gore and succeeded in convincing much of America that innocent, accurate statements were "character-defining lies." Secondly, John Edwards was sitting right there. If Cheney thought, "Hmm, I'll pretend I never met this guy before tonight," he was running the risk of Edwards responding with something like, "Gee, I guess your memory is going, Mr. Vice-President. Let me list a couple of the times we met…" and making him look foolish or senile or just plain bad at facts. (One assumes Edwards didn't do that because he knew there were plenty of pictures and that he'd sound less wounded by the barb if he let others refute it and instead changed the topic.)
People lie either because they think they can get away with it, or because the truth would be more damning than being caught in a lie. We can all understand how Cheney, who is not a stupid man, would figure he can't say, "Well, yes, I have spent a lot of time suggesting that Iraq was deeply involved in 9/11." So he denies it. But no one asked him if he'd ever met Edwards before. He didn't have to say that. He could have insulted Edwards in dozens of other ways that couldn't be turned back on him with an old photo or file videotape. I think Cheney just got reckless, forgot he'd met Edwards before and said something he thought would have an impact in a debate where he wasn't doing as well as he'd hoped.
My other point is along the lines of those bumper stickers that say, "No one died when Clinton lied." No one will die as a result of Cheney's misstatement about meeting Edwards. Even if Cheney deliberately lied about that, it's not even in the same hemisphere of importance as lies relating to the wars in Iraq and on terrorism (and I think, by the way, Democrats should be making the point that those are really two separate wars). Look at the new revelations of how many administration officials knew those aluminum tubes were not related to any Iraq nuclear weapons program. So far, the kindest interpretation one can put on this is that a lot of senior officials in the White House staff knew they were spreading a justification for war that might well be false, and now they're lying about what they knew and when they knew it. Those are lies of the "truth would be more damning" variety.
It might well be that it will have more impact with the electorate for the Dems to sell the "never met Edwards" thing as a lie because they can show photos and footage that prove it isn't true. But if I'm going to get incensed about Dick Cheney lying, I'd prefer to be incensed about the statements that don't have any possible innocent explanation and that plunged us into a war under false pretenses.