why (obviously) lie?

During the vice-presidential debates, Cheney alleged that last night was the first time he had actually met Edwards, thereby insinuating that Edwards hardly ever showed up for Senate.

On this morning's Today Show, however, Tim Russert spoke about how Cheney's remarks was a blatant lie and how Cheney and Edwards had been on Meet the Press together early this year.

The fact that Cheney and Edwards have met twice before does not disprove Cheney's allegations. If Cheney wanted to challenge Edwards' dependability, though, he could have easily done that without saying that he's never met the South Carolina senator before (i.e., without lying). What a dumb move. Blatant lies seem out-of-sync with Karl Rove's typically tight campaign. This, of course, does not preclude Rove's reliance on obtuse lies. Take Halliburton. Allegations and lies come up all the time, but the multiplicity of issues and the general public's lack of familiarity with government bid process decreases the risk of public outrage. Frankly, people don't understand and they don't care about Halliburton. But we regular folk can handle an easy analysis of last night's comment: either (1) Cheney met Edwards before, and or (2) he didn't. If it's (1), he lied. If it's (2), he told us the truth.

If there's some 1.5 hidden here, please educate me.

Bill O'Reilly also tackles the issue of lies but in a slightly different context -- a children's book. *shivers*