Mr. McCain’s remarks, however, differ from the numbers available.
What The New York Times means is, “Mr. McCain’s remarks, however, are incorrect.”
“The numbers available?” As if there might be other, unavailable numbers that would support McCain? I’m glad the Times avoided the typical journalistic practice of writing something like, “Democrats claimed that Mr. McCain’s remarks are incorrect,” but they still can’t bring themselves to say outright that a candidate or politician is wrong about something.
Note to reporters and editors: If there are known, undisputed, verifiable facts about the world, then you can refer to them clearly and unequivocally and still be “impartial” or “unbiased”. Indeed, that’s why we call these things “objective” facts, and you are allowed to refer to such things in “objective” journalism without betraying your professional principles.