Bell, Congress took itself out of the picture on the bridge over a year before Palin was even elected. She "told Congress" nothing. She's lying. I'll let Bob Somerby do the lifting:
-----------------------------------
Palin’s claims about the Bridge to Nowhere have been widely discussed for almost two weeks. But [the media still has their] basic chronology wrong. As all sentient beings must know by this time, the project “became a symbol of legislative abuse” shortly after it was proposed, in the fall of 2005. In response to that public firestorm, the Congress rescinded its “Bridges to Nowhere” earmark in November 2005. We explained this fact at the start of last week, linking to the detailed New York Times news report from November 2005 which explained these elementary facts. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/1/08.
Boys and girls, let’s say it again: The bridge became a “symbol of abuse” in the fall of 2005. For better or worse, Palin didn’t “reverse field” on the project until September 2007, almost two years later; the project was under debate in the state of Alaska until that time. But so what? Even now, the editors of the New York Times can’t explain the simplest facts about this widely-discussed issue.
But then, it’s hard to find an upper-end journalist who can explain this bone-simple chronology. On Sunday, the super-foppish Michael Dobbs discussed this for the Washington Post, in his ironically-named “Fact-Checker” series. Uh-oh! Dobbs, who may be the world’s dumbest human, also got the basic facts wrong:
DOBBS (9/7/08): The Republican vice-presidential candidate is overstating her opposition to earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin endorsed the the bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Gravina Island while running for governor in 2006. She only decided to kill the bridge project in 2007 after Congress voted to remove the $223 million earmark, and allow Alaska to use the money for other purposes.
That can all be defended as technically accurate (but only barely). But Dobbs quite plainly gives the impression that “Congress voted to remove the $223 million earmark” at some point after Palin became governor—it would seem, in 2007. That, of course, is baldly wrong. But then, this bungled chronology also drove that gruesome Wall Street Journal report by hapless Elizabeth Holmes:
HOLMES (9/9/08): Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.
But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
Holmes’ statements are also technically accurate. But she too conveys the clear impression that the project “became a national scandal” after Palin took office. Again, this is flatly inaccurate. Boys and girls, can we say it again?
- The bridge “became a national scandal” in the fall of 2005.
- Palin was elected governor in November 2006.
- As governor, Palin stopped the project in September 2007.
It’s hard to imagine a simpler chronology. But in the mahoganied world of the upper-end “press corps,” the hockey mom’s tale has now gone for the hat trick. In just the past six days, the Post, the Journal and the Times have all managed to bungle these bone-simple facts.
