“Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.”

Confusion is the result of our government feeding us propaganda but the public sees the attrocities of war every evening.

The reason why America: invested so much into an unconstitutional war; took a defensive posture instead of winning the war; letting so many noble individuals needlessly die; etc. was but the tip of the iceberg of what was censored. The media portrayed exactly what the power mongering propagandists wanted.

Confusion in the public mind over complex issues is not the result of a lack of censorship, but rather of a public which has recieved insufficient education to be able to make sense out of the complexities of the data they are presented. The world is simple when you present them with nothing but a simplified map to the world (as so many of the Radical Religious Right are want to do, and as King George W and Jester Dick are doing to us now).

It is precisely that reason why censorship, with the exception of personnel safety, should not be allowed.

If you had billions upon billions of dollars to skew the media anyway you wanted it, would you find it a good idea to get the media to create a facade of public problems in order to make a diversion from what's actually going on? (David Rockerfeller)

Westmoreland was a dupe, but wars MUST be censored. Our enemies currently need no intelligence apparatus. We have plenty of traitors in politics, the bureaucracy, academia, law and the media to feed them intel for free. There is no “right to know” for the public in war. That is a ludicrous concept. What would the “source” of that right be? Not the Constitution, not God! It is almost as foolish a concept as the idea Mike from Norwalk SSR puts forth that the war is unconstitutional. It is completely constitution. And Mike probably keeps a copy of the Constitution stuck up his butt where it is easy to read by candlelight. The Constitution tells how we may DECLARE war, not that we must so in order to engage in hostilities. Jefferson (you know one of those founder guys who had firsthand experience on the Constitution) attacked Islamic terrorists without Congressional approval or a declaration. Barbary Wars ring a bell? Needlessly killed??! We have not had a major attack on our soil since, and we have accomplished a vast number of positives. You have to be blind, stupid or, once again have your head firmly planted in your butt not to see that. The WTC in 1993, and 9/11 were atrocities; Dresden was not, Hiroshima was not, Nagasaki was not, and “Abu Ghraib” would not have gotten the “victims” into my fraternity house let alone qualify as an “atrocity”. Get some perspective! Talk about insufficient education, Anonymous (another word for morale coward), you are a classic example. Education and information are available to all for the taking. It just takes a little effort and intelligence to use it, the former is rare, the latter appears to have become non existent at times.

Looks like GWB got it right this time -- the people now yell at their TVs "Bomb 'em, bomb 'em!" If we were truly serious about the necessity of the secrecy of war, then we would hear nothing at all. What should be remembered is that whatever we hear about the war is what we are 'supposed' to hear about it -- one must assume that it is not in fact true. An independent press will only 'confuse' people. The question is: what are we fighting for if we must suspend liberties at home in order to fight for freedom abroad? Such double-think is hardly nourishment for a free People.

I don't think the public sees a bare fraction of the war---it is censored from our viewing. And I agree that the public is almost totally ignorant of war and politics but a major reason is that the public has never been told the truth in this country from its inception. The rich and powerful have always controlled the media. And, Mr. helorat, I think you would have been happier having been born 60 years earlier and on another continent.

Truth is the first casualty of war.

Maybe the public could feel Westmoreland's arrogance and noticed what he couldn't see, that his way wasn't working. If we were winning would controversy exist in such signifigance? This quote made years later and he still fails to admit his own mistakes...

He atleast stood by his decisions and ideas. Atleast we learned.

Perhaps there is ...."There is no 'right to know' for the public in war" But shouldn't there be? To deny that there were atrocities in Vietnam is ridiculous. Why, should we, as the public, not be able to make the basis of our decision (for or against a certain war) on ALL the facts.