Reply #18: Check out (decode) this paragraph from Salon on today's NYTs story.

[EFerrari]

It's sort of beautiful in its subtlety.

"The Times also contradicts previous reporting in asserting that administration officials may not have opposed the destruction of the tapes, and that others may even have advocated their destruction. "It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex," Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane write. "One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes ... "Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal."'

― Alex Koppelman

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/19/tapes/index.html

When I read Paul Thompson's new timeline on this topice, I get 1) This was Cheney's baby. 2) Bush kept himself insulated. 3) CIA had to go along but tried to CYA at every point because they've known Cheney too long.

So, imho, what we're seeing is the Bush team trying to maintain distance, Cheney team trying to get some and CIA trying to point attention back at the White House and at Cheney in specific.