hey, we're reporters, not mathematicians

you may have seen news of the congressional budget office's letter to congress which estimated the cost of an armed conflict with iraq.

you may also have seen where we previously have said, in a nutshell, "it's gonna be 'spensive!" the cbo offered two different scenarios, one relying heavily on ground troops, and one relying heavily on air attacks, both costing approximately, in round figures, a whole lot of money.

well, the gang over at cnn.com, not to be outdone by skippy and his staff, also posted their version of the same figures from the same letter from the same congressional budget office. now, when we say "their version," we don't mean to imply they made up different numbers than the ones in the letter to congress from the cbo; the did not. but they seemed to play fast and loose certain factors the cbo mentioned, and their story leaves the distinct impression that a war will cost a whole lot less than the figure that anyone who actually knows how to add would come up with.

cnn's opening paragraph: "the congressional budget office said tuesday that a u.s. war against iraq would cost between $9 billion and $13 billion, according to an initial estimate sent to the house and senate."

we're sorry, but no matter how many different ways we read that sentence, the meaning always comes out to be a war would cost between $9-$13 billion. period. not $8.5 billion, not $13.2 billion. pretty simple on the face of it.

however, if we examine the cbo letter to congress, the source of cnn's bold statement, we find these words in the second paragraph: "the incremental costs of deploying a force to the persian gulf...would be between $9 billion and $13 billion." [empahsis ours]. (that's just getting everybody and everything over there, even before we begin!)

the next three sentences in the cbo letter states: "prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month--although cbo cannot estimate how long such a war is likely to last. after hostilities end, the costs to return u.s. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion. further, the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations could vary from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month."

so let's cut cnn some slack and assume the war will last less than a month (it very well could). and let's even give their argument more advantage by taking the lowest of the figures the cbo offered. and let's pretend that in some wild scenario, the u.s. doesn't spend one thin dime for occupational forces after the shooting is done. even with all those concessions to bolster cnn's point, anybody who passed third grade math can see that

...........................$9 billion - - - to get the stuff over there
plus....................$6 billion - - - to actually fight the durn thing
plus....................$5 billion - - - to get the survivors home

equals................$20 billion.

that's at least $7 billion more than the "$13 billion" ceiling that the opening paragraph announces, more than 50% higher than cnn claims it will cost!

now to be fair to cnn (or perhaps to even make them look stupider, we're not sure which), the article goes on to mention that it would cost extra money actually fight the thing, and to bring people home, and for further occupation of iraq afterwards, and it cites correct figures from the cbo letter.

to wit: the sixth paragraph of the cnn story, in toto (gee, and even toto knows how to add, and dorothy too):

"once u.s. troops, equipment and warplanes were in position to do battle, it would cost about $6 billion to $9 billion a month to run the war."

well, gosh, pardon our websters, but doesn't "running" a war count as the "cost" of war? who's doing these books, arthur andersen? we don't understand how the article can state unequivocally in its headline and opening paragraph that a war would "cost up to $13 billion" and then go on to mention figures that add up to, even with the lowball prices, far more than that number.

do they think flunked arithmetic? are we suppose to sit back and say, "put that calculator away, mildred, i trust these cnn figures implicitly. $13 billion is doable. good thing it's not $19 billion or something like that. let's send in some money now. what's the address of the pentagon again?"

we are sorry that cnn resorts to such blatant propaganda and fact-spinning as to put forth one figure as the cost, and then to set out other figures that, literally, don't add up.

but, what do you expect from a network that uses connie chung and paula zahn as anchors?