We'll disagree on most of how you interpreted CCAGW's article; well, better stated, I interpreted it differently.

 

As for the above portion of your post, unless I learn how the money was actually spent, I cannot conclude that she supported government waste. If the fed money was spent of "good" projects, I don't have any problem with her receipt and use of the fed money. But from what I do know, if the money had been spent on the bridge, such would have been wasteful spending and I do know that such did not occur. Whether she made the call as to how the money was spent or some one else in Alaska made that call, I don't know. But I do know that it wasn't Congress that killed the bridge. If people are upset with anyone, they should be upset with Congress, shouldn't they? They pretty much gave the money to Alaska and said spend it however you want as I understand it. That's really sad.

 

Has any one been able to find how the money was actually spent?

 

This is how I’ve arrived at my conclusion:

• Congress had approved a transportation appropriations bill that included a massive earmark for a bridge to an island of twenty people in Alaska. I believe this would have totaled $398 million.
   
  
• At some point, this bridge became the mascot, so to speak, of pork-barrel spending and was thus dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
   
  
• Palin, during her campaign, supported the bridge. She also expressed doubts about its efficiency.
   
  
• The “Bridge to Nowhere” became such an embarrassment to Congress that they repealed the earmark for it. An earmark is a conditionality of funding, meaning that the money had to be used for a specific project. Congress removed the conditionality but not the funding.
   
  
• Palin received the money, but sans conditions. She chose not to build the bridge. Which was a good idea considering it was a national laughingstock and Alaskans, even, overwhelmingly thought the bridge was a waste.
   
  
• She continues to say “I told Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” Especially in its context, she implies she stood up to Congress in an effort to fight pork-barrel spending. Simply, she didn’t.
   
  
• If she fought Congress to have the earmark removed, then her statement is valid, in my eyes. If Congress left the earmark and she spent the money on something else, then her statement is valid, in my eyes. If Congress left the earmark and she used refused to build and used the bully-pulpit to turn the spotlight back to Congress, then her statement is valid, in my eyes. Congress didn’t ask her if she wanted money for the bridge, Congress didn’t give her money for the bridge, Congress simply gave her money, unconditionally. That isn’t “thanks, but no thanks,” in my eyes.
  

 

I'll try and answer a few of your other questions. Yes, Congress should be heavily criticized for this and then some. Too much money is spent frivolously. No, Palin shouldn't be criticized for how she handled the situation. She did what any reasonable governor would do. But, simply put, I think she is being disingenuous when she reiterates the "thanks, but no thanks" rhetoric.

This is how I’ve arrived at my conclusion:

• Congress had approved a transportation appropriations bill that included a massive earmark for a bridge to an island of twenty people in Alaska. I believe this would have totaled $398 million.
   
  
• At some point, this bridge became the mascot, so to speak, of pork-barrel spending and was thus dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
   
  
• Palin, during her campaign, supported the bridge. She also expressed doubts about its efficiency.
   
  
• The “Bridge to Nowhere” became such an embarrassment to Congress that they repealed the earmark for it. An earmark is a conditionality of funding, meaning that the money had to be used for a specific project. Congress removed the conditionality but not the funding.
   
  
• Palin received the money, but sans conditions. She chose not to build the bridge. Which was a good idea considering it was a national laughingstock and Alaskans, even, overwhelmingly thought the bridge was a waste.
   
  
• She continues to say “I told Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” Especially in its context, she implies she stood up to Congress in an effort to fight pork-barrel spending. Simply, she didn’t.
   
  
• If she fought Congress to have the earmark removed, then her statement is valid, in my eyes. If Congress left the earmark and she spent the money on something else, then her statement is valid, in my eyes. If Congress left the earmark and she used refused to build and used the bully-pulpit to turn the spotlight back to Congress, then her statement is valid, in my eyes. Congress didn’t ask her if she wanted money for the bridge, Congress didn’t give her money for the bridge, Congress simply gave her money, unconditionally. That isn’t “thanks, but no thanks,” in my eyes.
  

 

I'll try and answer a few of your other questions. Yes, Congress should be heavily criticized for this and then some. Too much money is spent frivolously. No, Palin shouldn't be criticized for how she handled the situation. She did what any reasonable governor would do. But, simply put, I think she is being disingenuous when she reiterates the "thanks, but no thanks" rhetoric.

 

Do you know if at any time before Congress removed the ear mark Palin was saying she opposed the funding of the bridge because of its foolishness?

I did find the following timeline (for purposes of fairness, I found it on McCain's site):

 

BRIDGE TO NOWHERE TIMELINE

2005

July 29: the Highway Reauthorization Bill, including the $223 million bridge to Ketchikan, AK, passed the United States Senate.

John McCain voted against the bill; Barack Obama supported it.

November 16: House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that the federal funds be spent to build the Ketchikan Bridge.

December: the estimated costs of the Ketchikan Bridge reach $315 million.

2006

May: the estimated costs of the bridge now reach between $325 and $350 million.

July 27: gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin denies the project is a “bridge to nowhere.”

September 21: Palin said the money for the bridge should remain available for “a link, an access process” for the island.

October 20: Palin’s spokesman confirmed she supported the Ketchikan Bridge Project.

December 4: Sarah Palin is sworn in as 11th Governor of Alaska.

December 15: Gov. Palin proposed her first budget which included no additional funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" saying, "We need to make wise, sensible choices."

2007

January: The estimated costs of the bridge are reported to have ballooned to $400 million (79% increase from the original estimate of $223 million).

February 6: Gov. Palin's transition team released a memo that criticized the "Bridge to Nowhere" project, concluding that the project was "a severe drain on resources that would otherwise be assigned to heavily used commercial and passenger routes."

May 12: Alaska’s 2007 state budget included no additional funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere" to cover the increase in costs.

August 18: Bridge to Nowhere put “on hold” by the Alaska Department of Transportation due to the political fallout and the lack of funding.

September 19: the Alaska Department of Transportation released a statement saying Gov. Palin ordered a halt to the bridge project.

September 21: Gov. Palin: “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."

September 22: Rep. Kyle Johansen, R-Ketchikan: “For somebody who touts process and transparency in getting projects done, I'm disappointed and taken aback … We worked 30 years to get funding for this priority project.”

September 24: “Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today celebrated a major victory over one of the most infamous pork barrel projects in recent history, the ‘Bridge To Nowhere.’ On September 19, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin ® announced the state would abandon the project and focus on other transportation priorities.”

September 26: Anchorage Daily News Editorial: “Gov. Sarah Palin won few friends there with her decision to drop plans for the bridge, but she made the right call.”

September 27: U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, criticized Gov. Palin for killing the bridge and described their relationship as “a little frosty.”

Sen. Stevens on Palin’s decision: “(It) may well jeopardize further funding by the Congress of any bridges in Alaska, which I think is a dangerous precedent.”

September 30: Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka: “Improving access to Gravina Island has been an economic priority for the community of Ketchikan, the state of Alaska and our congressional delegation for over 30 years. I'm shocked that the governor would ignore the significant energy, work and financial resources already invested in the project."

September 30: Lois Epstein, head of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project, a watchdog group that monitors public transportation projects, praised Palin's action: “The move ensures that this controversial bridge will not be built."

 

I think it is important to note the heavy criticism that she received from fellow Republicans for her lack of support for the Bridge. That indicates something positive to me.

Do you know if at any time before Congress removed the ear mark Palin was saying she opposed the funding of the bridge because of its foolishness?

 

I'm only aware of the statement from the Anchorage Daily News in the CCAGW article.

 

The editorial stated “Of the proposed bridge to the Ketchikan airport, she said in May it's hard to believe the bridge is the best use for all the money it will cost. Then, at an Aug. 8 meeting with The Anchorage Daily News, she said she would love to see the Ketchikan bridge constructed, though she also acknowledged Alaskans need to be realistic about where the money would come from.”