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

He Ain't No Liberal

Barack Obama is the True Conservative

by MICHAEL TRACEY

Listen to the right-wing these days, and you’re bound to hear ad nauseum about Barack Obama’s allegedly ‘radical socialist’ agenda.

Box office record-smashing documentary “2016: Obama’s America” argues that the president endeavors to actualize the “anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, and anti-American” ambitions of his late father by destroying our country from within. (Because Obama, of course, hates America).

Echoing this sentiment, Mitt Romney has declared that Obama harbors “a vision of government that is entirely foreign to anything this nation has ever known.”

But wait just one second there, Mitt. As Joe Biden might put it, this is all a bunch of malarkey. Nothing about Barack Obama’s tenure in office thus far indicates that he is a stealth Marxist, wussy peacenik, Muslim Brotherhood booster, or any of the other countless caricatures dreamt up by unhinged internet commenters.

Newsflash: He has basically managed the executive branch as a conservative.

This may seem counter-intuitive, given all the fanciful theories flurrying about. But take a look at how true leftists currently perceive Obama. Many are beyond disillusioned, and refuse to support his reelection; that he’s a closet “socialist” would sure be news to them.

If anything about Obama is radical, according to this strain of thinking on the Left, it’s his perpetuation and expansion of George W. Bush-era civil liberties infringements.

Similarly, liberals often bemoan Obama’s over-cautiousness, his shunning of the Democratic base, and his instinct to negotiate with intransigent Republicans. Obama has long exhibited such qualities, dating back to his time as president of the Harvard Law Review, when he angered ideologically-allied colleagues by appointing three conservatives to prestigious editorships.

Traditional conservatism is marked by prudence, caution, and reluctance to overexert, but use of strong force where appropriate. On foreign policy — arguably the commander-in-chief’s most important duty — Mitt Romney demonstrates exactly none of these traits.

In what sense is dramatically increasing the size of our already-bloated defense budget, as Romney has demanded, a “conservative” virtue? By some calculations, military spending today is already greater than at any point since World War II. Pouring even more money into Pentagon boondoggles is not only foolish and wasteful, but poor strategy.

Romney’s saber-rattling at Iran does not bespeak “conservative” virtue either, nor does his aggressive rhetoric on Syria. There is nothing for conservatives to admire about prideful bellicosity.

The new wars in the Middle East that Romney seems to desire would only further diminish America’s standing overseas and, inevitably, lead to devastating loss of life.

As Ron Paul preaches: “They don’t hate us because we’re free. They hate us because we’re over there.” Romney has apparently learned nothing from the failures of the previous Republican administration. Why is he so fixated on meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations?

The governor loves to criticize Obama over high gas prices, but can you imagine what an American-backed Israeli strike on Iran would do to international oil markets?

Romney undermined U.S. interests abroad last month when he cynically proclaimed that Obama “sympathized” with the Jihadist fighters who besieged our embassy in Egypt. And Romney is certainly not behaving like a “conservative” when he falsely accuses the commander-in-chief of going around the world on an “Apology Tour.”

Obama, for all his faults — and much to the consternation of liberals — is running as the real conservative in this race. Mitt Romney is running as a typical cheap politician.

Michael Tracey writes  for Salon and The American Conservative.