"The F-22 can't make toast either. In fact, to my knowledge, no current US fighter aircraft can, so I guess we might as well just give up on them. SpaceShipOne is designed for a completely different purpose than a fighter aircraft, it has no attack or defense capabilities of any kind, nor could they easily be added." 
And yet, if I described a Russian fighter that could outrun our fighters and go sub-orbital, you'd scream that we were behind the Russians in aviation technology (and in that scenario, you'd be correct).
I've said it before on this thread and I'll say it again: Rutan's SpaceShipOne is important to illustrate that a technological milestone has been crossed. Civilian aircraft are now flying at Mach 6 and going sub-orbital.
If you think that the entire military world is going to miss the importance of this new paradigm shift then you are in the wrong line of analysis.
>>I've said it before on this thread and I'll say it again: Rutan's SpaceShipOne is important to illustrate that a technological milestone has been crossed. Civilian aircraft are now flying at Mach 6 and going sub-orbital.
I am not arguing about the technological milestone. I am one year away from a degree in Aerospace Engineering, and I want low cost spaceflight as much as you do. What you don't seem to comprehend is the massive difference between SpaceShipOne and a fighter aircraft. You can't just say, "X vehicle can do this now so Y vehicle can do it right now also". A well built dirt bike can get 100 miles per gallon, that doesn't mean a pick-up truck can do the same thing. That is what we are talking about here. SpaceShipOne is carried into the air by a totally different aircraft. It has no weapons, defenses, military style radar, nothing like that. If our fighters ever have to scramble, do you want them to have to be carried into the air by another plane first? The two are so different that even comparing them is ridiculous. SpaceShipOne goes up and comes down, once per trip, it doesn't have the fuel to go up and down twice.
How would you attack with it? You would either go in really slow and hope you didn't get shot down before you could blast off into orbit to get out, or you would come in at Mach 6 and hit the target, then ditch the plane and take a suicide pill. If you mean for it to be unmanned, we already have orbital unmanned weapons, they are called ICBMs.
I agree that fighters will be sub-orbital and orbital someday. I want to see the first US Airforce X-Wing as much as you do. But it will be in decades, not years, and currently our best fighters are only slightly better than those of our ememies, if that. We can't afford to wait decades to develope a sub-orbital fighter, we need the F-22 now.
As for Burt Rutan laughing at the military, that makes no sense. I have, right here at my house, an appliance that can wash my dishes, and I bet SpaceShipOne doesn't have this. I bet it doesn't have a clothes dryer or a lawn mower either. Does this mean I should be laughing at Burt Rutan?
The shuttle can do most of the same things Rutan's ship can do. If the airforce wanted a shuttle, they could buy one. They don't, because it doesn't fit any of their mission profiles.
What the airforce needs is a plane that can consistently beat the best current enemy fighters. They don't need it two decades from now, they need it soon, unless you think we can just ask China or some other potential enemy to just hold off on fighting us until we can get our sub-orbital fighter ready. That plane is the F-22.