Phil Kennicott at the Washington Post has managed to find fault with, of all things, the frame used for the picture of the now-dead serial terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
Apparently the gist of the complaint is that the portrait is too professionally framed, as if the picture of the dead Zarqawi is a trophy. Oh, and that the framed picture makes Zarqawi look like a "disembodied head," an uncomfortable reminder of one of Zarqawi's favorite hobbies of painfully and slowly sawing the heads off of his screaming victims.
What I think it really comes down to is that Kennicott doesn't want any symbolic representation of American victory in the Iraq war. Sprinkled throughout the column are all sorts of attacks on the Iraq war itself. The basic theme seems to be: "But we're still losing the war!":
We may not have victory. Iraq may be a living hell both for those who are fighting to make it better and for those who live there. But we bring home the occasional politically expedient marker of "progress." Major combat operations are over. We got Saddam's sons. We got Saddam. Now we have Zarqawi. The trophy case fills: elections, a constitution, a new government -- everything but peace and stability for an exhausted nation of Iraqis who have died by the tens of thousands during the evolution of this war.
Fortunately, Mark in Mexico (via Memeorandum) has an appropriately amusing response, including other frame "options which may be more pleasing and acceptable to Mr. Kennicott's critical eye and delicate psyche."
Also on the job -- and quick to point out the absurdity in Kennicott's article -- are The Sundries Shack, Blue Crab Boulevard, Macsmind, and NewsBusters.org.
I think the bottom line is that Kennicott doesn't want to hear of progress in the Iraq war. It doesn't fit with his entire worldview. Thus, he is more than eager to "shoot the messenger." Or in this case, the messenger's frame.
Comments