Dear Editor:
The article “Anti-War or Anti-Bush” in the Sept. 27 issue of the East Tennessean was pretty disturbing in my opinion. The author remarked upon the march that took place on Saturday, Sept. 22. Josh Mckinney states, “I can’t think of anything more heartbreaking than a soldier going to war and never coming home.” In the next paragraph he states “what angers me is the puppet.” Basically saying that dead soldiers are not anger worthy but a puppet is.
The creators of the puppet were “using the war in Iraq as a platform to attack President Bush.” I would ask the author, “why not attack President Bush?” He did start the war after all, even after the United Nations declared that it would be a mistake. He was the one who said that they had weapons of mass destruction, and that we would be greeted as liberators. He was the one who stood on an aircraft carrier in his flight suit (playing soldier) and declared an end to major military operations. How many lives and how many dollars have been lost since then?
The author states, “The puppet became the main event of the march.” He states that “two pictures of it were featured in the East Tennessean.” The author fails to mention that one of those pictures was of the march in general. The headline of the Johnson City Press read “Hundreds March in Peace Rally.” The headline was not, “Massive Puppet Paraded through Streets, One Man Outraged.”
The author relays what he calls “a visual,” where he compares the puppet at an anti-war march to piling up dead soldier’s bodies and dancing on top of the pile, all while holding a “stupid, grinning, puppet.” I thought this image was completely absurd. The puppet was an image of George Bush, you know, the guy who started the war. That’s right, the same war that was being protested, this is completely different than piling up bodies and dancing on them, which is quite disturbing.
Mckinney calls the puppet “crude, shameless, and demeaning.” Strong words to describe a work of art made of papier-mÄch and wire. I believe what is more “crude, shameless, and demeaning” is an unjust invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. The author calls on “those responsible” for the puppet to apologize. I see this as a glaring contradiction. The author wishes to hold the artists responsible, why then does he not wish to hold George Bush responsible for the war? I happen to believe that the one who should apologize is George Bush. After all, the puppet was only an expression of someone’s opinion of the man who started the invasion. May I remind Mckinney that the puppet did not send those soldiers to an early grave, George Bush did. The puppet has never killed anyone, but the hubris and stupidity of George Bush has killed hundreds of thousands.
-Jesse Ball

Author