In the context of JimO's good article, it's worth pointing out that Don Rumsfeld was strongly opposed to the Apollo program when he was in Congress in the 1960s.

Why?

Not because he wanted the money spent on welfare, but because he thought Apollo was silly diversion of resources -- both money and engineering talent -- away from military space programs. Rumsfeld had very little use for NASA, but instead wanted the money spent on anti-satellite weapons, space-based anti-missile systems, the AF's proposed space station (bascially, a manned spy platform, not outrageous for the 60s though technology soon made that notion obsolete), and other "black" projects.

I'd argue the value in foreign policy terms of Apollo was considerably greater than if we'd developed anti-sat weapons in 1970 or had twice as many spy satellites orbiting. Not to mention that I suspect Apollo attracted and inspired lots of engineering talent that went on to design all sorts of militarily useful stuff in the 1970s and 80s. Rummy does have tunnel vision that way.