corrente

Here's the latest of Inerrant Boy's shifting justifications for the war:

[BUSH] Our immediate task in battle fronts like Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere is to capture or kill the terrorists ... so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush told a cheering crowd outside the West Virginia Capitol.
(AP via News Tribine)

Except... Except... Let's look at some numbers:

Only 90 of the more than 5,700 people in custody in Iraq as security risks are foreign fighters, defense officials said on Tuesday, a figure that suggests the Bush administration may have overstated the role of outside militants in the deadly insurgency.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said the U.S. military command handling security detention facilities in Iraq confirmed a report in USA Today that fewer than 2 percent of those in custody were foreigners.

The small percentage indicates the war in Iraq may not have attracted very many Islamic militants from other countries.
(via Reuters)

So, who exactly where these "terrorists" we would "face at home" if we didn't fight the war?

1. The 5,700 Iraqis? (Assuming, of course, that all of the Iraqis in our jails ought to be there)

2. The 90 foreign fighters?

And was it worth it to spend $161 billion (so far) to capture either the 5,700 or the 90?

Maybe we should have just carpet-bombed the middle east with dollar bills. It probably would have been cheaper, and I bet it would have been more effective.