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

Join Us Every Friday in Boston

Why We Picket John Kerry

by JOHN WALSH

At the time of the 2004 presidential election, the country was almost evenly split on the question of the Iraq war, but sentiment was moving steadily and irreversibly against the war. And yet neither major candidate opposed the war in 2004. Republican George Bush was calling for us to fight on, and Democrat John Kerry was calling–well, for us to fight on. If anything, Kerry was the more belligerent of the two, demanding an additional 40,000 troops. Now a clear and ever growing majority is opposed to the war. In the light of that do we want to have a repeat of the 2004 spectacle in 2008? Do we want another presidential campaign in which a hawk runs against another hawk, with the view of the majority of voters represented by neither major party candidate?

That is precisely what will happen if we allow the Democratic establishment to field presidential candidates who are pro-war, who call for fighting on and for "staying the course" in Iraq. To allow such an electoral development once again would be politically inexcusable and morally reprehensible. It would mean that we are acquiescing in what former President Jimmy Carter has correctly called "an unnecessary and unjust war."

We must remember that the Iraq war is a bipartisan one. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats in October, 2002, when the vote on war was taken. And no political figure is more symbolic of the Democrats’ support for the Iraqi war than John Kerry. In 2002 he voted for the War on Iraq, in the form of an "authorization" which itself was an unconstitutional transfer of power to the executive. And he says he would do the same today, knowing what he knows now! His campaign in 2004 angered many in his own party and it brought him to defeat. It was pro-war and it was a loser.

In fact the Democratic establishment has disgraced itself as an opposition force on the war. Not only is it unwilling to represent the majority of voters on this issue, but it delivers a slap in the face to the 72% of rank and file Democrats who want the U.S. out of Iraq at once. These "leaders" are obviously marching to different drummers, apparently to the same drummers to which Bush marches.
What are we to do? A number of people of all political hues and colors, Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, Independents, religious activists, and those with family members among the troops in Iraq, have joined together to picket John Kerry’s office at One Bowdoin Place every Friday at 4:30 pm to oppose the war. (We hope that the non-neocon members of the Republican Party who oppose the war will soon join us.)

We call ourselves "Not One More," Cindy Sheehan’s memorable phrase for opposing the war. And we are not alone. In other states, antiwar activists are appearing at events where leading establishment Democratic hawks appear. In New York, Hillary Clinton, another pro-war Dem, faces demonstrations. In California, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi have been the target of protests, which finally forced Pelosi to alter her pro-war position and back Congressman Jack Murtha’s call for total withdrawal from Iraq in no less than six months time. So such protests can and do work. (And we are not forgetting "W" in all this. Most of us have gone to Washington to protest the war, most recently last September.)

Some would argue that only Bush and not his Democratic collaborators in this unjust war should be targeted. Nothing could be more wrong-headed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 warned us that the election of candidates like Kerry (or H. Clinton in 2008) would merely serve to substitute a Democratic version of the war on Iraq for the Republican one. Similarly, the late Eugene McCarthy in opposing the Vietnam war, which of course was backed by his fellow Democrats Johnson and Humphrey, identified blind partisan loyalty as the sentiment which made the war possible. His message was Daniel Webster’s maxim "to never give up to party what was meant for mankind."

So let us follow Cindy Sheehan’s example and do what we can. It may be that a new political party, perhaps a Green/Libertarian fusion candidate, will emerge by 2008. Or it may be that the Democratic establishment (or perhaps even the Republican one) will change its ways. In either event our Friday anti-war picket calls on everyone "to never give up to party what was meant for mankind."

JOHN WALSH and NOM can be reached at jvwalshmd@gmail.com. He welcomes inquiries and suggestions about the Friday anti-war pickets at John Kerry’s office.