Did the Red Cross refuse $1m Dixie Chicks donation?

[Pert_UK]

I can't find any info on this. I've emailed the Guardian Arts editor, but does anyone know anything about it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=7128

"At several venues, demonstrations have been staged. In Little Rock, Arkansas, a few days earlier, a local radio station handed out anti-Chicks T-shirts. More ludicrously, the American Red Cross turned down the group's offer of a $1m donation from the tour proceeds because Bush is one of its patrons. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,12102,1026475,00.html

If it's true it is scandalous and the people who made the decision should be sacked and imprisoned.

P.

[JackSwift]

1. If the Red Cross refused this honestly earned money

because the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush, then I will never donate again.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. I trust that by now they are in contact with the Red Crescent

The RC in Palestine especially will be glad of the money.

They always need ambulances, as the US funded sharon gunmen keep shooting theirs up.

[alaine]

3. I sincerely hope this is false, Bush did not publicly

criticise them and instead defended their first amendment rights as he should have (as for what strings he may have pulled behind the scenes, I have no idea).

We really need to let the red cross know how we feel if this is true, because we are the majority in this issue as proven by the #'s: Dixie Chicks now hold the record for 1st day ticket sales (ever) for their tour this year, and their tour is the top grossing concert tour of the year.

[Pert_UK]

5. Not according to the girls......

"Their anger at Bush is now expressed in far stronger and more coherent terms than the original off-the-cuff comment. "We were told the official White House quote on our ordeal," Maines recalls. "I thought it was going to be something empowering about the first amendment and our rights as American citizens. I don't know why I thought such an educated thing could have come out of there. Instead it was, 'Their fans have spoken.'"

"Which makes your mind go back to the death threats and the trashing of Emily's ranch and the corporate banning," says Maguire. "So is the President condoning those things?" Robison demands. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,12102,1026475,00.html

P.

[rucky]

4. If This Is True, Then Here's Why:

Natsios: NGOs Must Show Results; Promote Ties to U.S. Or We Will 'Find New Partners'

http://www.interaction.org/forum2003/panels.html

(snip): Natsios (head of USAID) insisted that aid agencies and for-profit contractors in the field should identify themselves as recipients of U.S. funding to show a stronger link to American foreign policy. If this does not happen more often, Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners.
NGOs and contractors "are an arm of the U.S. government," Natsios said...

Many InterAction members took exception to Natsios' comments, questioning why AID continued to fund their projects if the results were not satisfactory to the Bush administration. (end snip)

NGOs in Iraq have also been advised by the US not to speak with the media. Last time I checked, NGO meant Non-Government Organization.

Combine that with Lynne Cheney's new watchdog project: http://www.ngowatch.org , and you can see how the Red Cross would snub the likes of the Dixie Chicks... even tho 1 mil is a hefty sum, it's nothing compared to what they'd have to lose in Fed funding.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. If that is true, fund Refugees International

because that NGO refuses ANY money from ANY government, including the UN. It relies solely on the donations of individuals and certain grants-and knowing the folks involved, they would refuse any money with strings attached. They spoke out about the idiocy of going to war in Iraq way back in October, and they haven't pulled their punches since. Check out this organization by going to:

http://www.refugeesinternational.org