Who would want this job? Not Ari Fleischer. Not Scott McClellan. Not Tony Snow. And this week, maybe not the latest White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino, who has the esteemed privilege of answering journalists’ questions about the White House’s involvement in the recent CIA destruction of interrogation tapes. Or not answer, as the case may be. Is it just me, or doesn’t the White House’s latest “no comment” posture, following the earlier stance that “the President has no recollection,” only serve to make the President seem more complicit or––at the very least–– less informed? Neither of which is good. Am I right? But then again, shouldn’t the focus be on the CIA? And can we really blame these cloak and dagger gadabouts? I mean, covert groups like the CIA are sort of famous for being clandestine. Operating under the radar. Doing underhanded shenanigans and then covering their trail. It’s part of the M.O. But surely, they would know how bad this would look, right? Surely, they would know the kind of media firestorm destroying these tapes would create. Wouldn’t they? Which is why we have to consider this––whether or not the CIA checked in with the Oval Office before the trip to the incinerator–– isn’t it likely that the only thing more disturbing than the destruction of these tapes had to be the prospect of the world getting a peek at their contents? Isn’t that the obvious takeaway? Or am I missing something here? I know, Dana. “No comment.”