Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Edited by alexander cockburn and jeffrey st. clair

Dems Frantic About Nader

by Alexander Cockburn And Jeffrey St. Clair

was more devastating and punitive than the Welfare Reform Bill, passed in the summer of 1996. Gore was the one who pushed Clinton into signing the bill over the opposition of virtually the whole cabinet. In consequence 2.6 million people were thrown into direst poverty, of whom 1.1 million were children. The federal entitlement for welfare, one of the cornerstones of the New Deal was ended and 14 million on welfare were put on a 3-year limit.

Even as Nader made a strong showing at the National Press Club this week, Rep Barney Frank took a swipe at him, saying that Gore would be a more vigilant defender of civil rights. It’s odd to hear the openly gay rep from Massachusetts defend Gore on these grounds. After all, the vice president’s biographer Bill Turque discloses in his book that Gore, a born again Christian, has referred to homosexuals as being “abnormal”.

Gore is also the man who tried to gut affirmative action at the federal level, with his Reinventing Government initiatives in 1993. The vice president’s position on the death penalty is indistinguishable from George Bush’s, and Gore’s campaign is now attacking the Texas governor for being soft on crime.

In the New York Times, the columnist Anthony Lewis, a Gore supporter, lashed out at Nader for his opposition to the WTO and for permitting one of his groups to accept money from the textile magnate Roger Milliken.

At this point one has to start laughing. Over the past 23 years Gore has solicited and accepted campaign cash from arms companies, the nuclear industry, bond traders, runaway firms to Mexico like Mattel, exploiters of child labor like Disney. Occidental, in which the Gore family has a stake now worth over half a million, is trying to drill in the Colombian rainforest on land belonging to the Uwa Indians, who are being murdered by Colombian soldiers now about to receive another billion, courtesy of the Clinton-Gore administration.

In the end, Gore’s crowd have one basic argument: a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. No, it’s not. A vote for Nader is a vote for revitalizing the system and breaking the iron ceiling of the current one-party-with-two-heads.

Get Nader into the debates (under the current arbitrary rule imposed by the Democratic and Republican party machines he needs to show 15 per cent national support) and he could trounce both Gore and Bush and roll into November with support kindred to Perot’s 30-plus ratings in the summer of 1992. It was a three-way race then, and it could be a three-way race this fall. Nader isn’t going to self-destruct the way Perot did. A vote for Nader is not a wasted vote. It’s a vote for optimism, a vote that says that if Nader even gets over 5 per cent next November, then funding will kick in that will help thousands upon thousands of young reformers get their start across the country. It could be the first truly exciting event of the new millennium. CP