So the White House is demurely staying out of the fight between John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge over the terror-threat extravaganza scarily telling us nothing has changed on the terror front … but to be on alert for previously-apprehended parties now on the loose.

Some allies of the Department of Homeland Security within the Bush administration and members of Congress criticized Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday for issuing terrorist threat warnings at a news conference on Wednesday […] Some administration officials also complained yesterday that Justice Department or FBI officials in private conversations with reporters may have suggested that the latest evidence of a terrorist attack is new, when it is about six weeks old, officials said. […]

Administration officials have been discussing for weeks whether to raise the threat alert level from yellow, or elevated risk, to orange, or high risk, but they have decided not to take the step at this point, informed sources said. (05/28/04 WP/Mintz, Schmidt)

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse reiterated Thursday that his agency has not seen any change in the “steady stream of threat reporting.” “We do not have any new intelligence or specific information about al-Qaida planning an attack,” he said. (05/28/04 AP/Anderson)

But even before Crisco’s press conference (transcript), the White House promoted the announcement and underscored the “new” threat in tidy timeframe. From the White House Press Briefing, May 26, 2004:

MR. McCLELLAN: We have received credible intelligence reporting over the last couple of months indicating terrorists may attempt to attack us here at home, or our interests abroad over the next few months, during this summer or fall time period. […] And the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller will be holding a news conference today at 2:00 p.m. at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to discuss the threat situation […]

MR. McCLELLAN: What we’re saying is there’s intelligence indicating that they would like to carry out their attacks over the summer or fall time period, and that you have to keep in mind that there are a number of high-profile events, they’re symbolic events, there are large gatherings of people at those events. (WH May 26, 2004)

The briefing and Crisco’s press conference loosely set the election as a natural cutoff for this non-alert alert, suggesting that the terror they’re dealing with is that felt by viewers of Bush’s speech Monday over the prospect of a certain blithering idiot being reinstalled for four more years of mayhem. The Department of Hooey’s tap dance (see the longer excerpt in the extension to this post) indicates closer coordination with Ashcroft to do an end run around Ridge, making today’s stance utterly ridiculous.

Oh, and be on the lookout for a raving Tennessean who’s tearing through everything this administration stands for.

From: Ashcroft Assailed on Terror Warning
By John Mintz and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 28, 2004; Page A04

Some allies of the Department of Homeland Security within the Bush administration and members of Congress criticized Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday for issuing terrorist threat warnings at a news conference on Wednesday, contending he failed to coordinate the information with the White House and with Homeland Security, which has the job of releasing threat warnings. […]

Administration officials sympathetic to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said he was not informed Ashcroft was going to characterize the threat in that way — an assertion that Justice officials deny. Earlier Wednesday, Ridge appeared on five news shows saying that although the prospect of a terrorist attack is significant, Americans should “go about living their lives and enjoying living in this country,” as he said on CBS. Last night, the White House played down the turf battle.

[…]

Some administration officials also complained yesterday that Justice Department or FBI officials in private conversations with reporters may have suggested that the latest evidence of a terrorist attack is new, when it is about six weeks old, officials said. […]

Administration officials have been discussing for weeks whether to raise the threat alert level from yellow, or elevated risk, to orange, or high risk, but they have decided not to take the step at this point, informed sources said. (05/28/04 WP/Mintz, Schmidt)

From the White House Press Briefing
May 26, 2004

MR. McCLELLAN: We have received credible intelligence reporting over the last couple of months indicating terrorists may attempt to attack us here at home, or our interests abroad over the next few months, during this summer or fall time period. […] And the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller will be holding a news conference today at 2:00 p.m. at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to discuss the threat situation and talk further about some individuals that we want all Americans and others to be on the lookout for that could pose a danger to the United States.

[…]

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President receives intelligence briefings on a daily basis. He is constantly updated about the threat situation. And these are — obviously, all threats we take very seriously, but the intelligence we’ve been receiving over the last couple of months is something we view as credible and points to the possibility of attacks during this summer or fall time period.

[…]

Q Is there anything more concrete than an assumption or a belief that they may actually be in this country?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are individuals that were al Qaeda operatives that we’ve apprehended in the past. [Journalists don’t ask, “Were they detained?”, “Were they prosecuted?”, or “Where are they now?”] […]

Q But you have nothing definitive that there actually is a cell that you may have identified?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why I said — well, that’s why I said that we’ve received reporting from time to time that suggests that there are operatives in the United States. […]

Q Scott, since you’re not raising the terror alert, should we assume that the threat is not as serious as it has been in the past when you have raised the alert?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, all threats we take very seriously. And like I said, this is credible intelligence reporting that we have continued to receive over the last couple of months. And just because the threat level may not be raised doesn’t mean we aren’t taking additional measures to try to prevent attacks from happening in the first place.

[…]

Q I wonder, is this — is the factual basis for your statement here, for Secretary Ridge’s appearance this morning, increased threat? In other words, is the country in greater danger now than it was a couple months ago? Or is it the fact that there are these big events and you’re concerned that that might be an opportunity? Is there more information that the country is going to be attacked, or is it just the calendar?

MR. McCLELLAN: There’s a continuing stream of intelligence reporting that we’re receiving. […]

Q Is there more of it? Is there more of it now than two months ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would describe it as a continuing stream of intelligence reporting that we deem to be credible and that it indicates that they want to carry out an attack during this coming time period.

Q It does? It does indicate that they want to attack during this time period?

MR. McCLELLAN: It indicates that they may want to attack during this time period, yes. [repeats generalities]

Q What are you advising Americans to do, Scott? Not got to some of these Memorial Day events, cancel plane flights? What exactly?

MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats previous points] And the American people should always remain on a heightened state of awareness, particularly when they’re at high-profile, symbolic events where there are large gatherings of people present.

Q And do what during this heightened —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if they see suspicious activity or information, then they should report that information to the appropriate law enforcement or other officials.

[…]

Q But you’re simply saying that you’ve got a lot of things coming up. You’ve got a summit; you’ve got July 4th; you’ve got the election campaign. How important is the election campaign in this —

[…]

Q One last thing for you. Is there information that there are more al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. than were, say, at Christmas or last summer, in previous periods when we were concerned —

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, they’re going to be talking about some specific individuals that we believe pose a danger to the United States, that may have information about possible plots to carry out attacks, or may be involved in planning attacks.

Q But we’ve been looking at them for a long time, haven’t we?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it’s not necessarily that they’re in the United States, but it’s people that we should be aware of. And I think Director Mueller will talk about how we’re reissuing some of the bulletins saying to be on the lookout for these individuals, that when we go out there and talk about this information, more information can come forward and help us be prepared to find these individuals.

Q Scott, you have the White House telling us about this possible period of attacks; you have the Director of the FBI and the Secretary of Justice coming out in a few minutes to talk about it; Secretary Ridge talked about it. How come it’s not worth raising the color alert?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q Why isn’t it worth raising the alert?

MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats previous generalities] But just because we’re not raising the threat level doesn’t mean we aren’t acting in a number of different ways. And certainly, as I pointed out, we are better prepared today than we were the other day, or than we were a few months ago. And so we’re better prepared to respond to these attacks. And you have to take that into account, too — are better prepared to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place.

[…]

Q Scott, if I can take you back briefly to the terror warnings. The only PDB we’ve seen is, of course, the one that was released from August 6, 2001. When you compare the kind of warnings the President is being told about now to what we saw in that PDB, can you tell us, first of all, whether the indication that an attack could come in the United States is solely because we’re hosting the G8 Summit, or are these separate and distinct from the summit, which are always —

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, that’s not pointing to a specific target or a specific timing of an attack. What we’re saying is there’s intelligence indicating that they would like to carry out their attacks over the summer or fall time period, and that you have to keep in mind that there are a number of high-profile events, they’re symbolic events, there are large gatherings of people at those events. The terrorists would like nothing more than to try to carry out an attack like that against a large gathering of people. WH May 26, 2004