Criticism of White House spy blunder builds

Senator Chuck Schumer has formally asked the White House for an explanation of why the identity of a turncoat in Al Quaeda actively helping us was leaked to the press just as criticism for the White House's terror alert had put them on edge. Anger has come from across the political spectrum and overseas. The White House spokesperson implies it was not a good idea. Condi's defense? It was only given on background. That, of course, admits that it was their fault.

Again look at what the White House did.

1. It raised the terror alert and used that sobering step as an opportunity to pound the drum for Bush's reelection.
2. It backtracked the next day by sending conflicting signals about the currency of the info.
3. It un-backtracked the next day by dribbling out more info and getting a lot more explicit about current events that contributed to the warning.
4. It later leaked the name of an Al Quaeda spy to try and bolster its image when the criticism continued to build, thus damaging ongoing investigations, angering our allies and wasting a hugely valuable tool.

Is it so much to ask that terror alerts not be linked to campaign pronouncements and that any info they need/want to offer be given up front or not at all?