SARAH VINDICATED once again- Obama lies
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 09-14-2008 - 11:34pm |
CCAGW: BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP ON THE “BRIDGE TO NOWHEREâ€
(Washington, D.C.) - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today released a backgrounder on congressional funding for the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island in Alaska, better known as the “Bridge to Nowhere.†The material addresses some of the questions raised about the history of the bridge and its ultimate demise.
“There has been much debate and even more speculation about how funds for the Bridge to Nowhere were first provided, Congress’s role in changing the nature of the funding, and the various options the state of Alaska had to build the bridge,†said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. “Many in the media and the public are providing an opinion when they should be providing the facts. We intend to continually update this document on our website as additional verifiable information becomes available.â€
The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska). In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.
In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects. In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Gravina Island Bridge in his budget submission for fiscal year 2007. As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.†Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.â€
“Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,†said Schatz. “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.â€
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
Sarah is vindicated once again by the non-partisan group Citizens Against Goverment Waste which states she killed the Bridge to Nowhere not Congress.

Pages
>>> Sarah is vindicated once again by the non-partisan group Citizens Against Goverment Waste which states she killed the Bridge to Nowhere not Congress. <<<
Non-partisan?!?!
Congress officially withdrew the earmark dedicated to the bridge project. At the time Obama, Biden and 78 other Senators (should tell you something, right there, when 80 senators vote one way on ANYTHING), they were voting to KILL it altogether. It was only Senator "Tubular" Ted Stevens' behind-the-scenes maneuvering which allowed the appropriation to be RE-VOTED ON (as it says in your article), AFTER they'd voted to kill it (80 Senators voted to do so) the first time.
From the New York Times article which was actually written at the time of the change in the funding:
In other words, no.....but nice try; think I'll go with what was actually written by the paper of record AT THE TIME, when there wasn't a huge controversy swirling around it (or not AS big of one, LOL), rather than the current word of a tax-watchdog group run by a former lobbyist and aide to a Republican congressman.
On top of the facts in the above article, there's the additional (and VERY uncomfortable for Republicans) fact that Palin campaigned vigorously and extendedly on her support for the Bridge To Nowhere as she sought the Governor's Office. Then, after reaching office, she KEPT the money from the federal government, USED it elsewhere, and now claims that "if we wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves." Hell, Sarah, you HAD all the money! If all you'd objected to was that the project - as designed - was "inefficient" or something, you could've scrapped it, with all that money, and hired some "local boys" to do it again....just as your "we'd do it ourselves" comment seems to imply. But instead, you Hoovered up the federal dough like a cokehead on a three-day binge, and never bothered to even draw up any alternate PLANS for the bridge! And NOW, you want us to take your consistent revisions on this - not to mention the flat-out lies - seriously? Sorry, no sale.
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
Thank you for posting the truth.
Also funny, how the constant references to "federal funds" imply that the federal government somehow earned the money.
She might have read the epitath, but it was Congress who pulled the specific funding directive for the bridge after she was already on record supporting the bridge project.
Thank you for posting the truth.
If you'll read the entire article you will see these were merely accusations. None of these organizations were ever proven to be wrongdoers. For some reason Democrats are able to accuse people or groups in this country of wrongdoing and their followers take the accusations as proven fact. I think it is wiser to wait and see if the accusations were ever proven, which, as it turns out, they weren't. Further in the article after Citizens Against Government Waste was mentioned (and only mentioned once without any backup accusations against them, just lumped into the group, probably because they have caught Democrats lying in the past) they did actually interview the other side for comment. (Also, I am suspicious of the placement, because most people probably read as far as who was mentioned and then stopped reading the article.) The other side said, "This is a Democrat hit piece". It's funny how the party faithful just fall in line, isn't it?
Btw, Here is a list of Democrats who have accepted money from Abramoff:
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
* Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250
http://newsbusters.org/node/3465
Pages