A court filing on Wednesday by the special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney would testify as a government witness in the trial of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.
Might he? The above is from David Johnston's "Counsel Says He May Use Cheney in Libby Trial" in this morning's New York Times. The Timid's not too keen to tell anything in this 'he may testify' non-news angle. (If the paper of no record doesn't want to cover court developments, why do they continue to give them space?)
Compare this airy, breezy 'report' with, Martha's highlight, R. Jeffrey Smith's "Libby Told Grand Jury Cheney Spoke of Plame: Vice President May Be Called as Witness" (Washington Post):
Vice President Cheney was personally angered by a former U.S. ambassador's newspaper column attacking a key rationale for the war in Iraq and repeatedly directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then his chief of staff, to "get all the facts out" related to the critique, according to excerpts from Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony released late yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's published critique.
And that's the opening paragraphs not something buried at the end. (See previous entry if you're confused by that remark.)
On KPFA's The Morning Show today, Robert Jensen will be featured. For reasons on why you should listen, see Cedric's "On Race." And if you're a member who's written in on a topic (the topic in the e-mails) and are wondering why it's not addressed, as Rebecca noted last night, Ava and I tried to address it. We're not happy with the way it's turned out. We'd saved to draft and thought we'd work on it this evening but it's Thursday (indymedia roundup) and Ava phoned this morning to point that out. We may save it for The Third Estate Sunday Review Sunday. We are addressing it and we've got something that could go up right now -- it's very on the nose, very straight forward -- but it's not really the way we want to handle it. (If anyone's confused, think about the piece we floated through the community before posting at The Third Estate Sunday Review last month -- it builds on that due to a new development.) So please know that it will be addressed no later than Sunday. We're not ignoring it, we're just wanting to provide something more than what's expected.
Remember to listen, watch or read Democracy Now! today. If this entry feels light, it probably is. Both were lost this morning and I focused more on recreating the previous one.
the new york times
r. jeffrey smith
cedrics big mix
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
the morning show