SARAH VINDICATED once again- Obama lies

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
SARAH VINDICATED once again- Obama lies
84
Sun, 09-14-2008 - 11:34pm

CCAGW: BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP ON THE “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE”


(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.”


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.”


“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.”


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

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 10:35am

>>Thank you for posting the truth.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 10:38am

If the details made her look better she'd be revealing them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 10:47am

>>They didn't pull the funding. They removed the earmark, so the had the choice of whether or not to spend the money on the bridge. She said, "Thanks" for the money, but "No Thanks" to the bridge and spent the money on other infrastructure that was not so wasteful<<


Do you often tell people "no, thanks" for something they've not offered you?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 10:52am
That is incorrect. They gave her the money that she had the option of using on the bridge or for other things. She chose to kill the bridge.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 10:54am
Sarah KEPT the earmark money instead of returning it! That is not vindication. That is lying by omission. She said no thanks to what? Not returning the money. lol. She claims to be a cut and slash politician, but she's Ted Steven's protege. Ted Stevens- the KING of earmarks. How disingenuous to run as the anti-earmark "couple" when your "ears" are all "marked" up. lol.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 11:04am

Here is an excerpt from the interview with Charles Gibson:

GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...

PALIN: I was (Charlie interrupts)

GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.

PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.

GIBSON: Right.

PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.

GIBSON: But you didn't say no to Congress, we'll build it ourselves until after they pulled the plug. Correct?

PALIN: No, because Congress still allowed those dollars to come into Alaska. They did.

GIBSON: Well, but ...

PALIN: Transportation fund dollars still came into Alaska. It was our choice, Charlie, whether we were going to spend it on a bridge or not. And I said, thanks, but no thanks. We're not going to spend it on the bridge.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5789483&page=1




Edited 9/15/2008 11:05 am ET by chillychillychilly
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 11:09am

Right. She told Gibson - just as she's told everyone who'll listen on the campaign trail:

"Thanks (for all that lovely, lovely earmark dough), but no thanks (for a political albatross which I nevertheless campaigned vigorously in favor of)."

Now THAT'S Maverick-y, Baby! (not)

Now in darkness, world stops turning
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
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 11:13am
Um... can you prove that she "campaigned vigorously" for the bridge to nowhere?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 11:14am

She didn't tell CONGRESS "thank, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere" because CONGRESS wasn't offering her a bridge to nowhere.

Pages