Pentagon paying $400 per gallon to deliver gasoline to Afghanistan
$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.
The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.
Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.
“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”
The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is engaged in an internal debate over its future strategy in Afghanistan. Part of this debate concerns whether to increase the number of U.S. troops in that country.
The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has requested that about 40,000 additional troops be sent.
Democrats in Congress are divided over whether to send more combat troops to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of waning public support for the war.
Continue reading here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-g...
Why is this not on Drudge?
Usually Drudge picks up on stories like this. The MSM is totally silent. Last Friday I sent it to Drudge using his news tip box. Maybe a few DPers could also do the same?
This is sick. When the hell
This is sick. When the hell are we going to get out of there???
http://theconstitutionalists1.blogspot.com
Great Statistics to Remember
Bump!
Watch over 400 Activist-Issue Films Online, www.filmsforaction.org
www.youthforronpaul.com
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops
Given this a bump today
thought I'd give it a second shot.
Environmentalism and the War.
When an environmentalist argues against you for being against cap and trade then you should point out that we are for ending the wars which are the most destructive forces against the environment, we are also against the massive pentagon budget where they are the largest non-nation group to consume oil. So if you want to be for the environment you must be anti-war first.
http://www.meetup.com/RP2012GrandJunctionCO
I am
both; I care about the environment and am anti-war...
I think "true environmentalists" have unfortunately been lumped in with those pushing their own agendas...lumped in with those who profess to care about the environment, yet in reality only care about lining pockets, controlling people, et cetera...
Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...
utopian vision
Your comment touches on something that causes a lot of internal conflict for me.
On one hand, I totally love the natural environment...ecosystems, animals, landscapes, biodiversity, family farms...the smells of horse manure, hay, sagebrush, pineneedles. I wish we had a world where everything could thrive in balance. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the meadowlarks as well as the people.
On the other hand, man, I just don't know how to say this the right way. It'd be a better world with a reduced human population size, and short of natural disaster of epic proportions, the only way to get there is with an iron fisted one world government.
And that would throw individual liberty down the crapper...I mean, it is, in fact, throwing individual liberty down the crapper...it's going to hell in a corporate hand basket as we speak.
I guess my utopian vision has really healthy people with all the liberty in the world to live old fashioned human lives...farming, ranching, raising families, exploring, managing mom and pop businesses...but there aren't so many of them running around that they ruin the habitat for a variety of God's other creatures.
So, I just thought I'd throw that out there. It's kind of bizarre to hold libertarian values and environmental values at the same time. Fantasy worlds, reality. The way things used to be, the way things should be. I just don't know.
I share that vision, too.
Family farms, raising families, the landscapes and smells...and still room for other animals to have habitat as well.
I don't see that as the end result of an iron-fisted one world gov't, though, at least not one prior to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The same interests who promote iron-fisted one world gov't and seek to kill off the majority of the population do not strike me as really interested in a thriving populace where people tend to their families and farms in peace.
Hear hear.
Hear hear.