Isn't 50% of 146,000 troops 73,000 troops?

Military accounting might be a specialized subset of advance number theory these days, but this key graf from the top NYTimes story today titled "White House Said to Debate '08 Cut in Iraq Troops by 50%" is very confusing:

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

It is hard to think what is most annoying about this story. It's so hard let's make a quick list!

1. It contains NO on-the-record Washington sources. Not a single fucking one. In fact, the only named quotes are from a Sec. Gates press conference and a US general in Iraq who disagrees with the feasiblity of the entire supposed/possible/made up plan!

2. The entire story sounds like a planted leak from inside the White House to make it seem like the administration gets it has to plan to draw down troops even though just one day before the President was openly hostile to the SAME idea.

3. The article itself acknowledges this!

Still, there is no indication that Mr. Bush is preparing to call an early end to the current troop increase, and one reason officials are talking about their long-range strategy may be to blunt pressure from members of Congress, including some Republicans, who are pushing for a more rapid troop reduction.

4. Given all of the above (and pretty much the last six years), this story is still the paper's top story.

5. Oh yeah, that whole wrong math thing.

As we go into this holiday weekend meant to reflect on the ultimate sacrifices of the dead in the name of the nation, we should ask ourselves why our leaders, all of them, political, military, civilian, are unable to face the cultural equivalant of a paper cut to stop this mindless, horrible war.

Keeping with that, and this blog's long record of stealing from Crooks and Liars and questionable sports/politics connections, watch this video.

We play to win the game = we vote to stop this war

UPDATE: Greenwald says pretty much the same thing about the Times article that I do here, but with, you know, facts and shit.