See previous: 2007.05.23 Iraq/Iran Roundup

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

• Nutroots aghast at possibility that conditions might be improving in Anbar
• Senate Approves Iraq War Funding Bill Without Timetable ...
• Lefty embed to Dems: Troops want to fight on
• House Approves War Funding Bill Without Troop Withdrawal Timelines 
• WaPo weasel disses milbloggers
• Bush Pledges to Work With Allies to Strengthen Sanctions Against Iran
• Bush warns of heavy fighting in Iraq this summer
• Bush's Wars are Safer For the Military that Clinton's Peace?
• Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges 
• "Strategic" Polling On Afghanistan
• Al Qaeda Has Mastered Media Manipulation in Iraq

*** *** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** *** ***

Nutroots aghast at possibility that conditions might be improving in Anbar
Allahpundit

InstaGlenn’s post doesn’t quite capture all of the nuance of this little blog tiff they’re having with Joe Klein, which is actually just the latest skirmish in their ongoing war on big-media lefties like him and David Broder who dare to criticize liberals occasionally. (Google “Joe Klein” and “bloggers” and you’ll see what I mean.) Nor does he note the contempt towards Gen. Petraeus that drips from Rick Ellison McEllensburg’s screed, although he does drily mention in passing Ellison’s sneering reference to “shiny uniforms.”

But it’s worth clicking for the snark: ...

Read the whole thing, and do follow the link to Instapundit's post.

Senate Approves Iraq War Funding Bill
Without Timetable for Withdrawing U.S. Troops 

WASHINGTON —  Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress grudgingly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war Thursday night, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

"The Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice," said the commander in chief, and he warned that August could prove to be a bloody month for U.S. troops in Baghdad's murderous neighborhoods.

The Senate vote to send the legislation to the president was 80-14. Less than two hours earlier, the House had cleared the measure, 280-142, with Republicans supplying the bulk of the support.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. "This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and if anything, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was more emphatic.

"Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president," he said.

Did someone say "new president?" I can dig it. Fred!!!!!!

Michelle Malkin notes: Oh, the nutroots are as unhappy with the White Flag Dems right now as grass-roots conservatives are with the Amnesty Republicans: ...

Lefty embed to Dems: Troops want to fight on
Allahpundit

It’s Spencer Ackerman, formerly a war supporter and contributor to TNR, now a war opponent and embed in Iraq for The American Prospect. Sectarian killings are on the rise again, the public has further soured on the mission, and according to Ackerman, “nothing in Iraq worth fighting for remains achievable, and nothing achievable in Iraq remains worth fighting for.” (Not even preventing ethnic cleansing?) So he agrees with the Dems that it’s time to stop the war. He just wants them to stop pretending that they’re doing what they’re doing to help the troops, because as it turns out, most of the troops don’t want that kind of “help.”

Haunted by Vietnam, Democrats are determined to express support for the troops. This is admirable. The truth of the matter, however, is this: many troops in Iraq, perhaps even most of them, want to stay and fight. That doesn’t mean that we should stay in Iraq any longer. It does mean, however, that if Democrats want to bridge the divide between themselves and the military—an effort further complicated by their opposition to the war—they’re going to have to recognize that arguing in the name of the troops isn’t going to work…

There’s more at the link, including an argument about why the troops’ assessment should be given due regard but only as one piece of the puzzle and only then after we’ve discounted for the “never say die” can-do attitude that would skew the view of any honorable professional soldier. The shining irony, of course, is that until now the left has invested veterans with absolute moral authority when it comes to opining on the war (but only if they’re against it): that’s the root of the chickenhawk slur, that’s what forces the media to take vets-by-proxy like Cindy Sheehan seriously, that’s why Murtha emerged as a leading anti-war spokesman — he served in the Corps, and was thus possessed of a battle-hardened second sight to which the Chimperor wasn’t privy — and that’s why the Kossacks were so bubbly about the crop of Iraq war vets who ran for Congress last year as Democrats. I take Ackerman’s piece to be a tacit warning to all of them that the chickens have come home to roost and it might be time once again to see the virtues in civilian supervision of the military. ...

House Approves War Funding Bill Without Troop Withdrawal Timelines

WASHINGTON —  Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

The 280-142 vote sent the bill to the Senate for final passage, expected later Thursday night.

"The Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice," said Bush, and he warned that August could prove to be a bloody month for U.S. troops in Baghdad's murderous neighborhoods.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. "This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.

From the White House to the Capitol, the day's events closed out one chapter in an epic, wartime struggle pitting Congress against commander in chief over the future of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,400 U.S. troops.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio choked back tears as he stirred memories of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them," he asked.  ...

WaPo weasel disses milbloggers 
Michelle Malkin

You remember WaPo blogger William "obscene amenities" Arkin. Well, he's at it again--this time taking a swipe at milbloggers:

...The MilBloggers got an extra boost of attention after the news about the Army's "crackdown" on blogs, with the overheated claim that the new operations security (OPSEC) and bandwidth rules cut off soldiers from their families and restricting people's freedoms. An extra boost from whom, you ask? From the mainstream media they so seemingly despise...

Blackfive responds: ...

Bush Pledges to Work With Allies
to Strengthen Sanctions Against Iran

WASHINGTON —  President Bush called Iran's ongoing nuclear enrichment program unacceptable Thursday, pledging to work with U.S. allies to toughen sanctions against the renegade regime. ...

The president warned nuclear capabilities for Iran threatens the world a day after the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency released a report that said Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program despite U.N. demands to stop.

"In Iran, with a nuclear weapon, would be incredibly destabilizing for the world," Bush said. "It's in their interests that we work collaboratively to continue to isolate that regime."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will work with European partners, Bush said.

"The world has spoken and has said no nuclear weapons programs. Yet they're constantly ignoring the demands," Bush said.

Bush warns of heavy fighting in Iraq this summer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Congress was poised to approve money for U.S. forces in Iraq on Thursday, President Bush warned Americans to expect "heavy fighting" this summer during a critical time in his war strategy.

Answering reporters' questions at a White House news conference, Bush said the developments would occur once U.S. military reinforcements are in place in mid-June.

"We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties," Bush said. "We must provide our troops with the funds and resources they need to prevail." ...

Congress was set to vote Thursday on a war spending bill without troop timetables that have delayed passage of the $120 billion measure for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House is to vote this evening, with a Senate vote expected soon after. ...

Bush's Wars are Safer For the Military that Clinton's Peace?
Confederate Yankee

It sure sounds odd but that is what the numbers seem to show in regard to military fatalities during the current and most recent administrations.

I'd be interested in countering arguments, should anyone feel like making them, though the figures provided may make a certain amount of sense in one context.

Anecdotally speaking, I recall that the various sports teams at my high school seemed to take more injuries in scrimmages than in games. Coaches often attributed such injuries to a lack of focus and less than full intensity on the part of the injured when other athletes were scrimmaging at "game speed." ...

I hate to drop an "amnesty bill" in the punch bowl here -- The Lord knows I'm no Clinton fan -- but we didn't just stop suffering non-combat fatalities when we invaded Afghanistan. As much as I hate to call attention to it I think the linked Gateway Pundit post is comparing apples to oranges. Go read it and see what you think.

Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges
John Carlson (H/T: Lorie Byrd)

A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq.

A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.

He described his Boone-based unit's successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.

Morale?

"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."

His greatest frustration? The performance of the people who deliver the news to the American people.

I'll let him say it, in his own words, in the letter, which found its way to me: ... 

"Strategic" Polling On Afghanistan

Just go read it. (H/T:Don Surber)

Al Qaeda mastered media manipulation in Iraq
Lorie Byrd (H/T: LB)

WASHINGTON - An aspect of the war on terrorism that gets too little attention, yet is as important as any other, is the media war. Whether they realize it, members of the mainstream media are participants in the war on terrorism, and nowhere is that more evident than in Iraq.

Blogger Bill Roggio, who has embedded as a journalist in Iraq and Afghanistan, says the enemy’s documents reveal that much of their strategy revolves around manipulation of the media. An enemy unable to beat us on the battlefield is employing a strategy of attacks planned specifically for maximum media coverage and effect.

Roggio recently told the Christian Science Monitor that most mainstream media reporters “display a lack of knowledge of counterinsurgency and the role the media plays in an insurgency’s information campaign.” He says al Qaeda and insurgent groups frequently choose their targets to get specific media coverage they desire.

He cited the way a suicide attack in the Anbar province was reported as an example. “U.S. success in Anbar was immediately negated when al Qaeda conducted a suicide attack in Ramadi in early May, and The Associated Press ‘reported’ that the attack dealt ‘a blow to recent U.S. success in reclaiming the Sunni city from insurgents.’ Al Qaeda conducted the attack to generate such an opening paragraph.” ...

Journalist Michael Yon describes a similar attempt to manipulate the media.  ...