In a May 9 Washington Post article reporting on a new House Democratic proposal that would give President Bush half of the emergency funds he has requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, staff writers Karen DeYoung and Jonathan Weisman granted anonymity to “a State Department official” who denounced the plan as a “moral hazard.” The official also mocked the Democrats' plan, claiming: “Now we're in Excedrin headache No. 1,” adding, “How do you fight a war two months at a time?” DeYoung and Weisman did not explain to readers why this official was granted anonymity.

The article had already attributed criticism of the Democratic plan to Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), citing his statement from a CNN report that "[i]t is unconscionable to think that they want to fund a war 60 days at a time." The article also quoted a second anonymous source, identified only as “a senior administration official,” who said, “We will see a sustained trend of suicide attacks” in the months leading up to the July vote authorizing the release of the remaining war funds. DeYoung and Weisman did not mention that, under the Bush administration's recent troop increase security plan, vehicle-borne suicide attacks in Baghdad have increased and according to "[p]artial data on attacks gathered from five U.S. brigades operating in Baghdad," “total attacks since the new strategy began in February were either steady or increasing,” as reported in a separate article by Ann Scott Tyson in the May 9 Post.

DeYoung and Weisman's article noted that the House Democrats' new war funding proposal would provide military funding until July and would require that the Iraqi government meet certain political and security conditions:

A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve.

The House measure, which could come to a vote as early as tomorrow, would substantially raise the pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to meet lagging commitments -- including new laws on oil revenue and de-Baathification, constitutional revisions, provincial elections and the demobilization of militias -- that Bush has said are crucial to the success of the U.S. military strategy.

After quoting Putnam's criticism of the proposal, the article devoted five full paragraphs to criticism from the anonymous “official[s]”:

Administration officials, while conceding Iraqi delays, described the Democrats' proposals as dangerous, and even worse than the “redeployment” conditions in the vetoed bill. “Now we're in Excedrin headache No. 1,” a State Department official said. “How do you fight a war two months at a time?”

Calling the Democrats' action a “moral hazard,” the official said, “Okay, let's pass a law saying no more funding past July 31 if the [oil] package of laws doesn't pass. What do you suppose happens next? If I was sitting in a neighboring country, really looking forward to saying bye-bye to the Americans, you've just shown me a way to do it.”

Strong diplomatic pressure is already being applied on the Maliki government, a senior administration official said, and mandating political reforms by a certain date would drive Iraqis further apart. “It allows extremist factions to say that these legislative benchmarks, which were an Iraqi political agenda, is an American agenda,” the official said.

“If you say the next two months are make or break, I think I can predict what we'll see,” the official said. “We will see a sustained trend of suicide attacks” by al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremists, making the Shiite-led government even less willing to move on de-Baathification.

“It's a really harmful approach,” the official said. “There is a risk you can push [the Iraqi government] off a cliff.”

But the article did not challenge the senior administration official's claim that the House Democrats' proposal would lead to a “sustained trend of suicide attacks” in the months leading up to the July vote authorizing the remaining funds. By contrast, according to Scott Tyson's Post article, there already is a “sustained trend” of suicide attacks:

Commanders said that even with the ongoing increase in Iraq of tens of thousands of American troops, violence could increase in coming months, and some indicators in Baghdad suggest that is already happening.

Partial data on attacks gathered from five U.S. brigades operating in Baghdad showed that total attacks since the new strategy began in February were either steady or increasing. In some cases, certain kinds of attacks dipped as the U.S. troop increase began, only to begin rising again in recent weeks. Overall, “the number of attacks has stayed relatively constant” in Baghdad, said one U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted by name.

[...]

In Baghdad, sectarian killings have fallen dramatically since January, while suicide bombings using vehicles have increased. Overall, attack patterns varied in different parts of Baghdad. For example, in Mansour to the west, extrajudicial killings fell in February only to increase again by April, while other attacks remained on average the same. In the Rasafa district of central Baghdad, weekly attacks went from 88 in January to 25 in February but are now at about 60.

In the relatively safe Haifa Street area of Baghdad, monthly attacks fell by about 50 percent from January to February but since then have increased slightly, including a significant increase in suicide car bomb attacks. In Sadr City, a large Shiite slum, attack levels have remained fairly constant since January.