With the Hays Code in full effect, the Office of War Information, and the Bureau of Motion Pictures reviewing Hollywood scripts and publishing "The Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture", which suggested that before producing a film, moviemakers consider the question: "Will this picture help to win the war?" It's hardly surprising that Hollywood only produced pro-american, the war effort is a good thing, type movies. They simply weren't allowed to make any other kind.

I don't say that to imply that Hollywood wouldn't have made the same types of movies if they had the freedom to make other kinds, but to laud them so vehemently for making the only kind they were allowed to make under what basically amounts to government censorship, seems a bit strong.

According to Robert Osbourne of TCM this is one reason Ford wanted to make the movie. As a soldier himself of course he wanted the movie to be patriotic and supportive of the Allied Cause.

Can you imagine any directors or actors today enlisting to fight?

I find this interesting. It's the Bureau of Motion Pictures report on Casablanca, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/bureau_casablanca.cfm

I think it demonstrates that even then our government had too many pencil pushers!

Lions For Lambs and some unflattering shit about the military had just come out in the media and it got me going.

I will question the patriotism of any liberal film maker I want. As they have proven in their actions and films, I also have the freedom of speech to do so.

Of course you have the right but just because someone challenges our government or the actions of our military does not neccessarily make them anti-American. I saw Lions for Lambs and it paints a very heroic picture of our soldiers but slams the men who send them to war, Similar to what you wrote in your Joyeox Noelle review.