NY Times misrepresented Feingold proposal on Iraq redeployment

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709200008?f=h_top

Summary: A New York Times article stated that a "proposal{}" by Sen. Russ Feingold "would require most American troops to be pulled out of Iraq by next June and would then cut financing for continuing military operations." In fact, Feingold's proposal would not have "cut financing" for U.S. troops remaining in Iraq; it provides funding for several "continuing military operations" in Iraq after the redeployment.

Reporting that Senate Republicans had filibustered an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) stipulating that U.S. troops' time at home should be equal to the time they spent overseas before being redeployed, a September 20 New York Times article misrepresented a separate proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) mandating that U.S. combat forces redeploy from Iraq by June 30, 2008. According to the Times, a "proposal{}" by Feingold "would require most American troops to be pulled out of Iraq by next June and would then cut financing for continuing military operations," a reference to an amendment Feingold proposed to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. In fact, Feingold's proposal would not have "cut financing" for U.S. troops remaining in Iraq after most troops are withdrawn. Rather, it provided funding for the following "continuing military operations" in Iraq:

[rodeodance]

1. lazy reporting.

[Tom Joad]

2. Which points out my disagreement with Feingold. I want *all* the troops out

as quickly as possible, which would mean a matter of months, and not years.
Not merely "redeployed", except in the sense of bringing them back to be redeployed to California, Kansas, Iowa, Virginia....

But none should remain in the Middle East.
they should come back to the midwest, or the south, or beaches of california, ...