Was it not Lacson who started the fire without evidence? He was the one who presented the WB report in bits and pieces. He said he will have other evidence gathered. How can that be now when the WB itself categorically admitted it had no proof whatsoever that the contractors and the First Gentleman were in collusion in performing the irregularities alleged? It's the World Bank we're talking about here. An international entity which cannot be dictated upon. So for those who are thinking that the World Bank was again influenced by Santiago or Enrile, it's better not to make such assumptions. When the WB said there was a controversy, the opposition and critics believed it right away. Now that the WB says it has no proof, the opposition and critics do not believe the WB and assume that something went wrong.



 
			
			 
			 
					
					
					
						 Reply With Quote
  Reply With Quote 
			 Originally Posted by raphz
 Originally Posted by raphz
					
 
 

 
						 
			


