Why is this the yahoo headline

[Johonny]

Bush vetoes legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq


No he vetoed funding for the troops that included non-binding time tables. The yahoo story doesn't mention either the 120 so billion dollars or the nature of the time tables.

[snappyturtle]

1. Media spin! Wonderful, huh? n/t

[Rainscents]

2. Spin machines are all out in force!!!

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Both the headline and story are absolutely fine.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later...Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Bush will meet with congressional leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.

That would be both the nature of the timetable and the money it authorizes. And the headline is fine. "Bush vetoes legislation that would pull troops from Iraq" is a fine recap. "Bush vetoes emergency war funding bill that also includes timetables for withdrawal" is clunky and long-winded. In fact, the headline as it appears on Yahoo is more accurate--the former correctly states that he has vetoed the bill because of its withdrawal deadline, whereas the "revised" version implies he is vetoing it because it funds the war, which is totally backwards.

There's no right-wing spin here at all.