NOT flamewar BUT wasn't there a prob with RedCross + 9-11???

[bobbieinok]

did they hold back a lot of the $$ that donors intended for NYC victims??

wasn't there lots of discussion at DU about this???

my recollection: I felt really sad about this......all the initial outpouring of $$ and blood to the Red Cross and then months later reading that at least part of the $$ had not been given out...don't remember the final conclusion about whether or not all this was true

can anyone set me straight on this??????

[AngryAmish]

1. They get nothing from me

After 9/11 they made a lot of misleading statements and put money which was contemplated for the victims into their general fund. Same thing here.

[Kenroy]

2. The problem was

that they had raised SOOO much money for 9/11 relief that, combined with federal aid, EVERY family who lost somebody in 9/11 was slated to receive millions.

The executive director of the Red Cross proposed using some of that money for other disasters. It caused a huge uproar, and I believe she ended up resigning.

But she was correct - there's no excuse to provide millions to some victims while others go without basics.

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. I think O'Reilly made a big stink about it

Horrified that victims of other disasters might get some of that money. Later the 9-11 families were branded as greedy by right-wing pundits when they started to question Bush and call for investigations.

[Hugin]

4. NO! There was no problem.

They allocate their donations as the see fit.

I trust their operation.

[FSogol]

6. Me too. I completely trust the Red Cross to do the right thing. NT

[DrDan]

5. there was some issues re the Red Cross and the

tsunami disaster - boiled down to an organizational difference between the Int'l Red Cross vs. American Red Cross - and the reich-wingers refused to support IRC (greedy bastards)

or is my mind failing?????