Um, Bob, your point is . . .
This column focuses on an individual, Aidan Delgado, who was in Iraq and experienced many "dehumanizing" events. The main thing is that he has pictures. He has pictures of bad things that American soldiers were pretending to do do dead Iraqis. Okay, so what? What does this have to do with censorship? In fact, he uses the word "censor" only 3 times in the course of his column. One of these uses was in the title.
He claims that the war we see on the media is "censored and sanitized." Yeah. "3 American soldiers killed in Iraq!" "More American Casualties in Iraq!" etc . . . That's sure censored and sanitized, focusing on the death of Americans in Iraq every day.
The "agonizing bloodshed and other horrors that continue unabated in Iraq," as he calls them, are mostly performed by the Iraqis. The American soldiers wouldn't be getting killed or killing Iraqis weren't attacking.
He says that if the"censor's veil" was lifted, "support for any war that wasn't an absolute necessity would plummet." Yeah. That's exactly what happened in World War I, huh. Hundreds of thousands (not hundreds) of American soldiers died. That war wasn't an absolute necessity. Public support for that war was rather high, in fact.
So at the end, his point has changed from so-called "censorship" to an investigation of the war. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to stay on the same topic throughout a piece of writing?
This guy also works for the New York Times. I'm scared that I ever even considered wanting to get that paper. Editorial excellence. Hah!