It looks like Libby's lawyers aren't going to call Cheney as a witness after all. Damn. I was sooo looking forward to his having to answer questions under oath and under cross-examination by Fitzgerald, who's known to be a no-nonsense bulldog who keeps to the point, keeps asking the same question until he gets an answer, a real answer. He could have helped us learn how Cheney got the authority of "declassify" (that is, leak) the Valerie Plame information (the answer, of course, is that he had to have spoken to Bush about it, and we would have heard the content of that discussion); to whom Cheney then turned to effect the leaks (there were others besides Libby who were apparently tasked with this); and finally--to me most importantly--we would have learned what Bush actually did to effectuate his own "investigation" of the leaks. Recall, Bush said he was going to track down the leaker and if he/she was found, fire him/her/them. In other words, we could have had a ball.
But my trial-lawyer/politico instincts told me all the while that the listing of Cheney as a witness was a feint, not a reality. Not only is Libby (and by extension his lawyers) too much of a loyal soldier to expose the Bush administration to such scrutiny, but--as the cited article says--Cheney's appearance and evidence would probably have hurt Libby's defense more than helped it.
A wise choice by Libby's defense team, but Damn, damn, damn.