Why is the WaPo defending George's budget?

hell if i know... as i noted in yesterday's post, why ANYONE would defend this budgetary abomination is beyond me...

The $481 billion proposal for fiscal 2008 reflects an 11 percent increase over this year; including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the $623 billion total is 60 percent larger than the defense budget that Mr. Bush inherited in 2001. Some analysts argue that the spending is historically outsized, pointing out that the total spent or requested for the two ongoing wars is greater than the cost incurred in Vietnam.

In fact there is some excess in the Pentagon's spending plan -- but many of the comparisons being drawn are deceiving. As a share of the U.S. economy, defense spending was at a near-historic low before Sept. 11, 2001, and even if Mr. Bush's new budget is fully funded, it will still be well below the average over the past century. Defense spending is now just under 4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 9.5 percent during Vietnam; the Reagan-era buildup took a 50 percent larger piece of national output.

how disingenuous can you get...? of course, the wapo has a grand tradition of being disingenuous, but sometimes they are simply over the top, as in the neglecting of THIS inconvenient truth...

The United States' military budget is greater than that of the next 14 biggest military spenders combined. Even if not one additional dollar is allocated to the advanced weapons systems now in the works, there is not a nation on Earth that would dare challenge U.S. dominance in the air or on the seas for decades to come. The enormous imbalance in U.S. military spending is not about defense but rather profit.

isn't it time we stopped spending our money on DESTRUCTIVE capability and started spending it on CONSTRUCTIVE capability...? isn't it WAY PAST TIME...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet