Again, this implies that Army spent 6.5 trillion, and I quote "there were no ledger entries or receipts to back up how that $6.5 trillion supposedly was spent".

Again, this implies that Army spent 6.5 trillion, and I quote "there were no ledger entries or receipts to back up how that $6.5 trillion supposedly was spent". Army has received far less than that in total money in their entire history, which is very easy to check. So which is incorrect? The article? Or every other place you can check historical US federal budgets? >no, I don't care to. I suspected as much. It's trivial to check this number is nonsense.