[LRB]

I may have met my fiancee previous to this year. She has worked at a store that I frequent for over 4 years. Neither she nor I can remember if we did. So we say we first met this year. While we may not be technically correct if later evidence shows up that we did meet. Like for example she being logged on to the cash register that processed a credit card transaction of mine, it doesn't mean it was intentional. However if I was to say that our first date was "seared" into my memory as taking place in Austin, then I would be purposely lying. Our 1st date was in Carrollton. Sure Carrollton is realtively near Austin. Maybe I could revise that when show the credit card records that show I was in Carrollton that night and say that I was in some no man's land between Carrollton and Austin.

Is it possible that Bush lied about his relations with Lay to make himself look better politically. Sure it is. However the evidence is very vague about what Bush meant. It even has interpretations by third parties thrown in with the quotes that from a majority of the context. At best this evidence is ambigious. Plus Bush has not made it a key portion of his campaign strategy that he in no way, shape, form or fashion knew any members of Enron senior managment before running as govenor.

Kerry on the otherhand has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. In esscense Kerry is saying, one of the main, if not the main reason, that you should elect me is because of my honorable service in Vietnam. However theres is an extensive public record of direct quotes wheat Kerry says his memory was "seared" with his recollection of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. There is overwhelming evidence that this was not the case. Yet when confronted by these new facts, Kerry trys to say that he didn't say what he did.

At best Bush made some highly ambigious statements that could be taken any number of different ways. Kerry made some explicit statements that any rational person would be hard pressed to take a different way.

I truely don't see any correlation between Kerry's statements on Cambodia and Bush's on Lays. While partisanship can cause one to not see what is there, it can equally cause one to see what is not there.