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.

Day12Fixed

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

Defending Aggression

The David Kay Report

by MIKE WHITNEY

"We were all wrong"

David Kay

We can finally put Weapons of Mass Destruction issue to rest.

With the publishing of the Kay report it is clear that the entire pretense for the Iraq war was nothing more than a hoax. Kay appeared before a Senate subcommittee to disclose his findings and admitted that he and his team had found no stockpiles of proscribed weapons in Iraq.

At one point he opined, "We were wrong, we were all wrong."

Wrong?

An estimated 8,000 innocent Iraqis died in the invasion, more than 500 American servicemen were killed in action, an entire country was destabilized and plunged into insurgency, and David Kay talks about being wrong like it was some minor miscalculation on the phone bill?

This is the reality of the Bush Administration’s new "preemptive" theory; hundreds of billions of dollars are spent, countless lives are lost or ruined, and the world community is thrown into turmoil, and yet, no justification is provided.

Even worse, the head of the weapons inspection team presents his case to Congress as though it was all "just an honest mistake".

So, why did Kay choose to address the Senate in the first place?

After all, Kay has been a reliable Bush loyalist, and that hasn’t changed.

Kay’s real intention in addressing the Senate was to use the CIA as a scapegoat for the bad information that led to the war. Now, that the election is approaching, the President’s chief advisor, Karl Rove, is trying to put as much distance as he can between the White House and the myriad lies about the non-existent weapons.

This is a delicate situation and has to be handled with great subtlety or intelligence agencies will see that Bush is trying to bury them in the media. Hence, the appearance of David Kay is intended to reinforce the false notion that the war was the result of faulty intelligence. Kay’s testimony challenged the reliability of intelligence gathering methods and suggested that we may need a "major overhaul" of the intelligence services.

Absent from the testimony was any detailed recounting of the many fabrications that were repeated with propaganda-like precision to support the war. Also, absent was the clear implication that the Administration was directly involved in "cherry-picking" intelligence to suit its own purposes.

Apart from Senator Edward Kennedy, there was no mention of the fact that the Vice President was pressuring the CIA with frequent visits to produce information that was compatible with his own warmongering objectives, or that an Office of Special Plans was developed in the Pentagon for the expressed purpose of selectively manufacturing evidence that Saddam was a threat.

Most of this passed by completely unnoticed. Instead, the Administration has adroitly used its main inspector to "move the shells" one more time, and shift the blame onto the undeserving CIA.

But, the CIA doesn’t create policy and it doesn’t make the decision to go to war; the President does.

The CIA was skeptical about the Iraq threat from the very beginning. Its reluctance to endorse the Bush preemptive policy was evident in an earlier report that clearly stated that a war in Iraq would increase the likelihood of terrorism in the region and, perhaps, force Saddam to give whatever weapons he had to terrorist organizations.

This warning was ignored.

It seems only appropriate that Kay would give his report on a day when six more American servicemen and eleven more Iraqis were killed. His loyalty to the Bush policy of unprovoked aggression provides an interesting contrast to the grim facts on the ground. Men and women are dying every day in what we know now was an entirely avoidable war.

The testimony of David Kay only confirms that point.

MIKE WHITNEY can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com