---

Censorship is needed
in war against terror

One has to be pretty far on the left not to see the media as biased against freeing Iraqis from tyranny. The bad news is generally highlighted, and the good news ignored; "U.S. killed" is the headline of the day, while the hundreds of terrorists eliminated once and for all seems to never happen. Obviously, this is an attempt to repeat the glory days of the Vietnam War, when the media turned military victory into defeat and were the Democrats' backbone in forcing a cowardly withdrawal, leaving millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians to their own holocaust.

But what to do? When Americans are being shot at and killed in the line of duty; when they knowingly put themselves at risk to free a people from tyranny; when the country is at war; and when in the long run all Americans are at risk from biological, chemical and nuclear weapons terrorists and their state supporters might use against us; we cannot afford to have the media freely providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The stakes are too high.

Often, it as though the media do not know which side they are on. They argue that they are objectively reporting the news and therefore should not be for one side or another. Thus, you read not about "terrorists" cutting off heads of their hostages and blowing up innocent civilians (and violating the most fundamental clauses of the Geneva Conventions), but "insurgents," "radicals" or the latest, "militants" killing hostages. "Killing," not murdering. Killing is what enemy soldiers do to each other in battle. Murder is the intentional killing of an unarmed civilian. But have you ever read of the terrorists murdering someone? Not strange that you do not. Why, this would be partisan reporting.

This is war. If the media have their way and we withdraw immediately from Iraq, or even begin staged withdrawals now with a timetable, the terrorists win. With the support of Syria, this is assured. Then, the resulting democide by the victorious terrorists may well come close to that in South Vietnam after we withdrew. And, so heartened by our lack of will, the terrorists throughout the world could only get more state support, including even possible help on nukes from North Korea or China (somehow, it has been forgotten that China is still ruled by its Communist Party, and our enemy).

In both World War I and II, the media reports on the war were strictly controlled. They must be again. Just in lives alone that might be saved thereby, it is necessary. How far should this go? I would use the censorship of World War II as criteria. This would mean, for example, that news reports of secret commando operations in Iran, or the employment of a secret weapon, or ... well, you get the idea.

If the media continue their refusal to support the war, or censor themselves (oops, correction, they do censor themselves against good news), and no government censorship is applied, then I will predict this: If any U.S. cities are destroyed by nuclear weapons, or there is a terrorist-created plague of some deadly disease killing millions of Americans, the possibility of which is one of the reasons we are at war, the media will not only be censored forthwith, but survivors will violently attack reporters, commentators and the offices of the media they believe to be partly responsible.

---