Sunday, April 1, 2007

Censorship of News Media in time of War

No soldier should ever be asked to go into battle unless there is full support from the nation that sent that soldier into battle. It would be far better not to go to war than to go to war without a commitment to do "whatever it takes to win". If there is the slightest question about going to war, America should not go to war, but when congress authorizes America to go to war, every critic should be considered a traitor. Soldiers are the shield that stand between the enemy and freedom in America, the war protestors and critics are the ones that stand behind the shield and stab the soldiers in the back.

The Iraq War is a perfect example for the need for news media censorship. The Iraq War was authorized by congress by almost an unanimous vote, but when WMDs were not found the democrats saw an opportunity to gain political power by becoming critics of the way the Iraq War was being handled by President Bush. The effort failed by Kerry in 2004, but the democrats and ALNM kept up the attack on President Bush until they succeeded by getting democrats back in control of congress in 2006.

In the Civil War and WW II news media censorship was used. Those have been the only wars that America has won. War should always be the last resort, but when America declares war it should be "All in to Win" or stay out. War can too easily be used as a political weapon.

Clinton knew fighting a war would not be popular and would not enter into war. Bush was forced into war, but got blamed for the war not being waged perfectly.

The Case for Censorship

War is serious business and not to be entered into lightly, however when entered into it must be carried to completion at all costs. This is also true of marriage. War is ugly. Pools of blood and burning vehicles make excellent news footage. War is ugly, but then the death of 3000 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists was also very ugly.

Any act that prolongs a war or gives encouragement to the enemy is an act of treason. The Islamic terrorists have great hope that they can win the war in Iraq as the Vietcong did in Vietnam by the Atheistic liberal news media antiwar propaganda.

I want to point out four facts.

1) In the civil war Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, thus imposing censorship.

2) In WW I Woodrow Wilson imposed censorship

3) In WW II Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed censorship.

4) Since WW II there has been no censorship, but America has not won a war.

There is something really ugly about discussing the conduct of a war during the war. That has been recognized in the past by establishing a separate branch of law called Military Law. Trying to impose Civil Law on a military situation is unworkable. War is not a normal situation and what is occurring is not normal or desired. However, it must have been the will of the people in a democracy to enter the war or the people would not be in the war. Discussing the conduct of a war can easily be treason because any criticism is an aid and comfort to the enemy. Any delay in the war means more casualties will occur. Censorship is needed to prevent the abuse of freedom of speech that usually occurs during a war.

The proper time to discuss the conduct of a war is before or after the war. After the war, all documents should be open to the news media and the judicial system, but not during the war.

All military action should be by a full Declaration of War with total censorship.

Pearl Harbor vs WMD

A comparison of the Pearl Harbor and WMD provides an excellent justification for news media censorship in time of war.

Pearl Harbor represented a clear attack of an American Military Base by an enemy that wanted world domination. WMD was a clear threat to America from an enemy that wanted world domination.

Pearl Harbor may also have been a setup to entice Japan into war because the Roosevelt administration thought that could not be defeated if Japan was allowed to continue to invade countries. The Roosevelt administration had already cut off oil to Japan and Japan considered that an act of aggression that some could say was justification for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.

Based on Iraq having used chemical weapon it was widely thought by most Americans that Iraq was continuing to develop WMDs. There were conflicting reports, but the safe side of the issue was to assume that WMDs were being developed and to proceed to eliminate the threat. The congress was convinced that WMDs existed, an authorized the Bush Administration to go to War with Iraq.

No news media was allowed to question the decisions of the Roosevelt administration because there was total news media censorship. If the news media would have been allowed to dig into the justification for going to war with Japan, I believe that WW II would have gone the way that the Iraq War has gone.

Most of the news media agreed with the Bush Administration that WMDs did exist, but when no WMDs were found, the news media turned on the Bush Administration and questioned every aspect of the Iraq War. Instead of just admitting that the intelligence was bad and moving on, the news media blamed the Bush Administration for deceiving them. The democratic party saw an opportunity to get back control of the government so they joined the news media in the blame game. If the Bush Administration could be blamed for the WMDs mistake, then every person in congress and every person in the news media that said they agreed that WMDs existed, should resign and never hold their position again. Blaming the Bush Administration for the bad intelligence was the most cowardly thing that could have ever been done.

There were a few (there are always a few) that opposed the Iraq War and questioned the intelligence of the WMDs. Are they heros or zeros? Lets say they were wrong and there had been WMDs and America did not go to war with Iraq. There will always be questions about who was right and who took the safe course of action, but for me, I believe the Bush Administration took the safe course of action. Those in the news media that were right about the WMDs and those that turned on the Bush Administration have done a great disservice to America by their constant criticism of the war.

WW II was won because there was total censorship of the news media. The Iraq War has been extended by the criticism of the Bush Administration by the news media and the democrats. WW II could have been extended and maybe even lost if the news media had not been censored.

America should never enter into a war unless there is a total commitment to win. A total commitment to win means there is total news media censorship. No soldier should ever be committed to battle unless there is a total commitment to win.

The use of the Iraq War to gain control of congress by the democratic party was an act of treason by the democratic party.

No comments: