Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=" target="_blank">http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpe cialReports.asp?Page=</a>\SpecialReports\archive\200512\SPE20051222a.html >>The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which slammed the Bush administration for its allegedly slow and racially insensitive response to Hurricane Katrina, has yet to spend any of the estimated $400,000 that it raised for the victims of the Aug. 29 storm.<< >>The CBCF then launched its own relief fund on Sept. 21, with a stated goal of raising $1 million to help Gulf Coast residents rebuild their lives. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the CBCF claimed immediate success, telling reporters on Sept. 21 that it had already received $700,000 in corporate pledges. But on Wednesday, exactly three months after the news conference launching the CBCF relief fund, Rice told Cybercast News Service that the Foundation has actually raised "somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 to $400,000." She added that the distribution of the money would not begin until January or February of 2006 at the earliest. Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a group that monitors charitable giving, was quick to criticize the CBCF. "It sounds like the CBCF has been stressing the immediacy of the [victims'] needs when they raised the money and yet for some reason when it comes time to dishing it out they can't seem to get organized," Boehm told Cybercast News Service. "The need is immediate and ongoing as they themselves have cited. For whatever reasons they have failed to give away a single cent as of the week before Christmas," Boehm said. "It appears that the CBCF has failed to meet the standard that it set up itself for: timely aid to Katrina victims."<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Oooh, those rascally dark-skinned people! Or, maybe the CBCF website might reveal that they have planned to take donations through the end of 2005 and to set up a board to oversee distribution in early 2006. If, you know, you wanted to look at more than just one slanted side of the story. Primary sources are a good thing.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But that info was placed there TWO DAYS ago, after the info was made public by others. It was an attempt to try and cover their butt. They complain about others, but have a different standard for themselves....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But that info was placed there TWO DAYS ago, after the info was made public by others. It was an attempt to try and cover their butt.> Perhaps. Or an attempt to set the record straight. I wouldn't assume until I saw more facts.
Originally Posted By woody "Perhaps. Or an attempt to set the record straight. I wouldn't assume until I saw more facts." Umm no. Let's assume right now!!! Why not call the charity some names? What's good for Bush is good for the charity.
