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: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 3:33pm

I've looked at the source documents that all this stuff is based on (courtesy of various news outlets and including some that you've provided), including the timeline currently under discussion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 3:33pm

LOL, at the thought of Mark relying on my spin for anything.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 3:54pm

You are obviously familiar with the propaganda technique called "Card Stacking":

Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. The audience must decide what is missing. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique: Are facts being distorted or omitted? What other arguments exist to support these assertions? As with any other propaganda technique, the best defense against Card Stacking is to get as much information that is possible before making a decision.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

I put forth ALL the facts, and when considered as a whole are favorable to Palin, and proves she isn't a liar. You picked out only the facts that you thought made your case. Sorry, it's too late. All the facts are there for anybody who is open minded, or interested in looking at them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 3:58pm

That's what I thought. I'm not accusing you of being open minded, but you could read this. It has all the facts and the time line of events.

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=16641.42

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 4:24pm

My apologies, I didn't understand that when she said "I told Congress thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere" she really meant "Congress voted down the earmark to the bridge

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 4:27pm
My heavens...facts. ; )
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 4:33pm

Read it, and while it has a few tidbits of interest it's little different than what has already been provided so far as hard data is concerned.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 4:41pm

it absolutly has all the fact and absolutely and clearly indicates she did not say "thanks but no thanks" to Congress, but rather used the money exactly as Congress indicated when they voted DOWN the earmark for the bridge to nowhere.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 4:43pm

I am picturing this conversation between Palin and Congress:


Palin:

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 5:02pm
The money was originally allocated for the bridge. When they gave her the money the Alaska Reps in Congress still intended it to be used for the bridge and the bridge project itself was still viable. Palin said no.

Pages