First up on the Wednesday Blog, insightful analysis of the U.S. defense budget and future defense priorities from the AEI:

There remains a critical problem in policymakers' approach to defense planning: confusion about the definition of "defense spending" and what makes up the defense budget. There is a crucial distinction between the baseline defense budget--the costs of raising, training, equipping, and otherwise readying U.S. military forces--and wartime costs--the additional expenses that come with employing the forces, including the costs of resetting them to original readiness levels. Indeed, the constant debates about the unanticipated and escalating (though still relatively low, as discussed below) costs of operations in Iraq and elsewhere have obscured and delayed a much-needed evaluation of the requirements for and costs of the force needed now and for the future. (continue reading...)

Three major developments strike at the foundation of U.S. global leadership and threaten to tip the current balances of military power; these have been broadly recognized and were given formal expression in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.[1] The most immediate and pressing of these--what has been called the "Long War"--is the struggle to build a durable order in the Islamic world. It is a challenge of staggering scope, subject to many shifting variables, and it subsumes the ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. The second and perhaps greater long-term challenge is the rise of the People's Republic of China, a state that is already a global power and perhaps will soon become a peer competitor--another superpower, but one quite different from the former Soviet Union. The third challenge--the accelerating spread of nuclear materials, knowledge, and weaponry--threatens to undermine the traditional ways in which military balances and international security are reckoned: the prospect of a weak and otherwise derelict state--or even terrorist or criminal organization--in possession of a nuclear weapon menaces the entire international state system. A final point is that these three challenges are not really distinct but intertwined. The energy resources of the Persian Gulf are as critical to China as they are to anyone. In an increasingly globalized world, how can it be otherwise? Yet as unsettling as these threats may be, they can be assessed with reasonable clarity, and they offer a sound basis for both short- and long-term U.S. defense planning.

As noted above, assessing the long-term defense needs of the United States is a different question from quantifying the short-term costs of wartime operations. The fiscal year 2009 defense budget request of $515 billion represents a baseline cost of raising, training, and initially equipping U.S. military forces. It also represents a mere 3.4 percent of U.S. GDP, a historically low figure. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has estimated that wartime costs for the 2009 budget year will be about $170 billion, a reasonably accurate assumption given the likely size and pace of military operations. It is unlikely that this figure will vary much--even if the incoming administration begins to withdraw combat forces from Iraq, the 2009 costs of withdrawal would be about the same as the costs of continued combat operations.

The Bush administration's Future Years Defense Plan has done little to address the underlying mismatch between the likely strategic requirements for U.S. military power and the institutional deficiencies that have resulted from the force reductions of the 1990s and the continuing lack of materiel recapitalization. Put simply, U.S. military forces are too small and their equipment is getting too old to sustain the three challenges defined by U.S. defense strategy. The new president must address the strategy-resources gap.

Despite the current slowdown, the American economy is more than able to sustain a modest increase in defense spending. The incoming administration should consider increasing baseline defense budgets to 4 percent of GDP, as recently recommended by Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is still a very low figure compared to past spending: during fifty years of the Cold War--a period of relatively constant economic growth and increasing widespread prosperity--Pentagon budgets averaged more than 6 percent of GDP. And, in a $15 trillion annual U.S. economy, an additional one-half percent of GDP would translate into an additional $75 billion per year, certainly enough to begin to meet the long-term requirements outlined in this Outlook. In sum, the need to strengthen U.S. military forces is immediate, and the cost is modest.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: the problem ISN’T we’re spending too much on defense, nor is it we have too many troops in Iraq. The issue is we aren’t spending NEAR enough on defense, particularly in light of the rising power of China….and we simply don’t have enough combat troops in uniform! And neither situation will likely change with either Dimocratic candidate in the White House!

Turning to the Political Page, we pose a question: what does Osama Obama and Rip Van Winkle have in common?

Barack Obama, declaring “that’s enough,” denounced Tuesday as “appalling” and “ridiculous” comments made in the last few days by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. In a press conference in North Carolina, the Illinois senator used his strongest language to date to condemn Wright’s controversial sermons, which have remained a burden to his campaign since they became national news more than a month ago. Wright spoke Monday at The National Press Club in Washington, D.C. “I am outraged by the comments that were made, and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” Obama said. “The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe they ended up giving comfort to those who prey on hate,” he said.

The both woke up after nodding off for 20 years! Van Winkle slept in the woods, and Osama obviously took his nap in church! Not the person that I met 20 years ago????!!!??? Heck, it ain’t even the person he knew two friggin’ WEEKS ago when he said….

“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Obama said

So what’s changed? The necessity of political expediency. But “Reverend” Wright should take heart; Osama’s only denied him once….Peter denied Christ THREE times. Then again, Peter was afraid for his life; Osama’s only worried about his political future!

But here’s the BEST part!

It turns out the woman who organized Reverend Jeremiah Wright's event at the National Press Club, Monday, is a Hillary Clinton supporter. Barbara Reynolds is a member of the Press Club's Speakers Committee and coordinated the event which some critics suggest did irreparable harm to Barack Obama's campaign. On a blog linked to her Web site, Reynolds wrote in a February post "my vote for Hillary Clinton in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you." She also wrote Obama’s theme of hope is "not based on facts." And, in a later entry she hit out at his handling of the Reverend Wright controversy saying, "the senator is fuelling the media characterization that Reverend Doctor Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."

Da’ beeatch set me up!

And here’s another must-have quote for anyone compiling Jeremiah Wright’s Greatest Hits….Right Between Osama Obama’s Eyes!

"Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

As we pointed out this morning, Wright’s history, facts and theology are sadly lacking in truth and substance of any kind. Having been born is Philly (unquestionably a cross for anyone to bear!) in 1941, Wright never experienced slavery or Jim Crow….so he put him in chains or slavery? And while God certainly gave him his color, is being born black to be taken as some kind of offense? And since Louis Farrakhan undeniably HATES anyone who isn’t black, is he thus worthy of adoration simply because he hates Whites but doesn’t offend Negroes?

Ah, the joy of seeing uncontrolled ego dragging two charlatans into the mud; “Reverend” Wright because he thinks he actually serving Osama, and Osama because he hadn’t the nerve, let alone the conviction, to disown this maniacal racist when such action would have been beneficial.

In other political news, here’s today’s “Is this a great system or WHAT?!?” segment, courtesy of FoxNews:

Senator Hillary Clinton has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for the next fiscal year. That's almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator during this current fiscal year. Earmarks are funding requests for those so-called pet projects that lawmakers usually award to their own constituency. And while Clinton has asked for $750,000 for a Homeland Security grant program and another $125 million for an urban security initiative, it is not clear what exactly those grants would pay for. But her office defended the requests saying the money is needed after a reduction in the Bush administration's budget proposal that left localities "ill prepared to prevent another major terrorist attack." Her presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain have not asked for any pet project funds this year. Meanwhile, Obama has released all of his earmark requests since being elected to the Senate in 2004 and has criticized Clinton for not disclosing her earmark history.

We have to confess we’re awed that Congress has created a system of self-promotion that allows members to make non-specific funding requests in advance of a given fiscal year budget submission….and with NO IDEA WHERE THE MONEY’S GOING! Is this a great system or WHAT!?!

And in today’s “Pot Calling The Kettle Black” segment:

Barack Obama made a call for nonviolence in the aftermath of the Sean Bell verdict — that's the bridegroom who was shot and killed by New York policeman outside a Queens strip club on his wedding day back in November. But that call for calm has reportedly infuriated the Reverend Al Sharpton. Sources told the New York Post that Obama and Sharpton had a heated phone conversation yesterday. The source said that Sharpton hoped Obama would not use the case as an "opportunity to grandstand in front of white people."

But it’s okay for Sharpton to grandstand in front of black people…..anytime, anywhere for ANYthing!

Moving on, here’s today’s “MSM Bias….WHAT bias?!?” segment, courtesy of James Taranto and Best of the Web:

The Associated Press has an interview with Richard Butler, the CBS journalist who was kidnapped in Iraq, possibly by "policemen with sympathies toward the Hezbollah," and rescued by Iraqi troops earlier this month. Butler shows that CBS journalists are not shy about expressing their opinions, at least not anti-American ones:

Butler said he felt it was better to be kidnapped in Iraq then taken into custody by Americans in Afghanistan. "I was pleased I wasn't being mortarboarded in Guantanamo or being held for six and a half years like an Al-Jazeera cameraman, for instance," he said.

Of course he wasn't at Guantanamo. He isn't a terrorist, just a jerk.

And a biased, ungrateful jerk at that! And what’s with this being mortarboarded? Mortarboard?!? Is that like “waterboarding”, except they strap you down and pour they pour quikrete up your nose? What an idiot!

Finally, we conclude the day with News of the Bizarre:

Bruce Pitts had a feeling something was wrong when the newspapers began piling up in the roadside tube outside the southern Illinois home of Fred and Blanche Roberts. So on Sunday, the worried newspaper carrier cracked open an unlocked side door and saw 84-year-old Blanche Roberts helplessly looking back at him, her right leg pinned beneath the body of her 77-year-old husband — who apparently had been dead for days in the home just outside Marion, Ill. "The good Lord was with her. She was not scared, wasn't panicking. Nothing," Pitts said Tuesday during a telephone interview. "She was conscious, talking. Just peaceful. It was remarkable."

Sounds like the plot of a new Steven King novel! And while we’re glad Blanche Roberts is recovering, there’s more to this story:

Williamson County, Ill., coroner Mike Burke said Fred Roberts likely collapsed and died of a heart attack Wednesday evening after mowing the lawn, based on accounts from people who were visiting the home that day. "They said he was really beat-red in the face, that he didn't look good," Burke said. He described Roberts as "a good-sized man," though he declined to divulge the man's proportions.

Yeah, after all, we wouldn’t want to adversely impact his self-esteem!

We’ll be on the road tomorrow through Thursday evening, but back in the saddle bright and early Friday! Until then, don’t YOU go changin’!

- Magoo