The New York Times gives hints, but we're not children. The wording "administration official" is a deception. It implies a person close to Bush has, for some unexplained reason, chosen to be loyal to the New York Times rather than to the President. On the face of it, it's damning. If true. But it's probably not true. Keeping the source unnamed allows the NYT's to get away with it. And yeah, my guess is some democrat CIA turncoat.
Can we always assume that the "adminstration official" that the NY Times is writing about is a person in the current Presidential administration?