The (not so) covert push against Pakistan

There's a big NYTimes story outlining a "consideration" within the White House towards more covert ops inside Pakistan. Separate from what's being planned, take a minute to notice the construction of this story. It is sourced "off the record" to "several of the participants in the meeting....."

What is that? With the White House apparently sanctioning the story, pretty much giving it to the NYTimes on a platter, I don't think you can really call this "covert."

Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership were likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. .....

But at the White House and the Pentagon, officials see an opportunity in the changing power structure for the Americans to advocate for the expanded authority in Pakistan.....

The new options for expanded covert operations include loosening restrictions on the C.I.A. to strike selected targets in Pakistan.....

The meeting on Friday, which was not publicly announced, included Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and top intelligence officials.

So, what is this? I just don't believe that the head of the CIA, the head of the NSC, and the Joint Chiefs chair discuss this in detail with the NYTimes without sanction and purpose.

Is it a very public "revelation" to allow the Musharraf government plausible deniability? Some effort to put pressure on them?

(Maybe related: (BBC) The governor of Pakistan's Northwest province suddenly resigns. He was behind the tribal regions peace deal and was one of the few high ranking Pakistani officers of tribal origin.)