I remember many things in my life.

In fact, just the other night I remember watching the Cheney Edwards debate, and I being impressed by the fact that Cheney (a guy demonized as a "junkyard dog") kept his cool, and for the most part seemed to have a better command of the facts.

My memory of my reaction was that Cheney had won it, but for the past couple of days there's been enormous outrage and great controversy over the "real" issue of the debate: whether Vice President Cheney had met Senator Edwards before the debate. Cheney said he hadn't, and it turned out he had. (Much discussion at Blogspirator.)

So now there's a grand national chorus of "Cheney lied!"

We must all put aside and (purge from our memories) whether there are more important issues before the voters. (Never mind that the debate itself focused largely on them.)

Did Cheney lie?

Are we agreed on a definition of what constitutes lying? His statement that "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight" was made after Cheney had highlighted Edwards' poor attendance record, and that was right after Edwards had lambasted Cheney over the Halliburton stuff. It is never wise to categorically use words like "ever" or "never" because it is very hard to know to a certainty what you might have ever done. Memories fail. In all honesty, I cannot state categorically whom I've met in my life and whom I haven't. Thus, whenever you use a word like "ever" or "never," you leave yourself exposed.

Why didn't Cheney use the lawyerly weasel words, "to the best of my memory?"

At least then, it could be said that his memory failed him. At the risk of sounding like a junkyard dog-defending fascist, I think that may be exactly what happened. To accept that Cheney knew that he had met Edwards, and deliberately lied about it, you have to also accept that Cheney is incredibly stupid -- which is inconsistent with his performance, his demeanor, and everything else that is known about him. I don't think he is that stupid (nor do I think even his enemies think he's stupid) and thus I think it was a failure of memory.

Which isn't all that great of a defense, but then it's not my job to defend Dick Cheney!

But there's a fairness aspect of this, and I think that if Cheney lied, then I routinely lie in this blog, and lots of bloggers lie in theirs. My memory does fail me from time to time, and I get facts wrong, as I did last summer when I misattributed the authorship of a film to a guy who wrote a book about the film. I did this even though I had seen the film and should have known better. Now, you can say that I lied, and while it might be true that I made a statement which is false, is that really what we mean by "lying?" I think that cheapens the word "lie."

What's important is to recognize and acknowledge errors. Cheney did that as soon as it was brought to his attention that he had met Edwards. And this is a big lying scandal?

Had their meeting been "memorable," why didn't Edwards remember it? He was standing right there.

I'm doubting that it was significant memory for either one of them.

But it's now the most significant memory of the debate?

I'm having trouble remembering the rest.....

Where's my coffee?

MORE: It may be too early in the morning for him, but I just spoke to co-blogger Justin Case about this, and he expressed concern about whether either Cheney's or Edwards' memories were truly "seared - seared!"

Did you have to say it twice, Justin?

If Cheney lied, my memory's fried!