Replies

You cannot tell me that most people thought they were giving money to the Red Cross in GENERAL, for them to distribute as they wished. The donations were intended for those families, with legitimate support for things like the rescue workers. It is shabby behavior, even if it is legal, and if they do not cough up most of that money to the families, the organization will suffer in the long term.

No more than 10% of the funds they've allocated are even going for the programs you have a problem with. And even then, they have a relation to whats going on. For instance, who do you think supports the overseas staff that has been supporting those Christian college women arrested in Afghanistan?

"No more than 10% of the funds they've allocated.."

Well, that is a big nothing statement. In fact, it is very Clintonesque. Where is the money that they haven't allocated yet?

You have an awful lot of detailed information to be a member of the general public. Either you are blowing smoke, or you have a connection to the ARC.

As far as the overseas programs, I have no objection to them. I simply do not think they should be funded with money that the donors thought would be going to the victims of 9/11. Many of the overseas programs may be quite good...I have no idea. But I do not think they should use this 9/'11 money for them.

Interesting tactic, that, trying to drag in the imprisoned Christian women in Afghanistan. It doesn't have anything to do with my objection, however.

As I said, they are probably legally entitled to do this. Ethically, it stinks.