How many lies can Woodward tell in one story?

Spot the lies and win a prize

Bob Woodward wants us to believe that he’s been out-Judying Judy Miller on the depth of his research into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity.

I don’t believe that, but I will believe he’s been out-Judying Judy on the amount of lies he can tell in one story.

Here’s one:

Woodward said yesterday that he was “quite aggressively reporting” a story related to the Plame case when he told Downie about his involvement as the term of Fitzgerald's grand jury was set to expire on Oct. 28.

Sure you were. Just as soon as Judy found her Washington bureau notes to give to Fitzgerald.

Here’s another:

In Woodward's case, he says he passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus in June 2003, but Pincus says he has no recollection of such a conversation.

There are several reasons Big Bobby W. would claim this that I can think of. One is to enhance the administration line that Plame’s name was floating all around the mediasphere. Another is that he was an active player in what I discussed earlier, the White House’s test-marketing of the strategy to out Plame. The third is that this was necessary bootlicking, either as a final payment for the books he’s already written or the down payment for one in the pipeline.

And a third:

Woodward said that the unnamed official told him about Plame “in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip” and that “I didn’t attach any great significance to it.”

Sure, sure. Picture Stephen Hadley, if that’s who his source is, just walking up to Big Bobby W at some D.C. cocktail party and saying, “How about those Redskins? And, say, have you heard about this woman at the Agency named Valerie — husband of Joe Wilson?”

And a fourth:

“The net to readers is a voluminous amount of quality, balanced information that explains the hardest target in Washington,” Woodward said

Are you playing judge, jury and executioner, Big Bobby W, by deciding that what you write is “balanced” without letting anybody know what you’ve heard?

What next? “Energy,” the “balanced” inside look at the Cheney Energy Task Force?

No. 5, sort of, per Digby:

Dick Stauber, Matt Cooper’s lawyer, just made a very good point on Hardball.

Woodward’s souce apparently came forward and told the prosecutor about their conversation. Yet Woodward still says that he is under a confidentiality agreement and needs special permission to reveal what he knows. Stauber asks, “If coming forward and admitting something to a US Attorney isn't waiving confidentiality, then what is?”

It sounds like Woody’s telling another lie, but on the other hand, his source knows that grand jury confidentiality protects his name. Even lawyerly leakers don’t leak names from grand jury proceedings, just the information. So, it’s arguable Woody’s on solid ground here. Nonetheless, he could at least lean further on his source at this point, or have invited Howie Kurtz to start asking him questions to which he could give denials or non-denials.

And a sixth, unstated lie:

Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review … said it was “kind of disingenuous” for Woodward to have made such comments without disclosing his involvement.

This is the lie of not disclosing the conflict of interest and possible bias on your Plame talk-show mau-mauing of BushCo critics. We can’t talk about your conflict of interest in Plame reporting because, per Lie No. 1, you haven’t done any yet.