White House claims to give up its ‘rose-colored glasses’

White House spokesperson Tony Fratto received a series of questions about Iraq during today’s press briefing, and the deputy press secretary used an interesting phrase more than once. (Think Progress has the video)

Q: Also, how does this latest violence in Iraq and the latest uncertainty about what’s going on color the Petraeus-Crocker testimony this time around? It obviously has changed the equation. I mean, weeks ago it looked like the surge was — you know, had this pretty rosy cast, and now with all this renewed violence, I think it has changed the dynamics. So how has this changed the equation?

FRATTO: Well, I think we’ve thrown out all of the rose-colored glasses in how we look at Iraq, and try to look at it through clear lenses as to what is actually going on in the country.

And then again, a few minutes later, after a question about Iraqis protesting the American troop presence in Iraq:

Q: Do you think it takes any of the steam, though, out of what Petraeus and Crocker will be saying when you see those images juxtaposed?

FRATTO: No, I don’t think so. I mean, it’s — look, every — like I said, we threw out the rose-colored glasses. I think we have a very clear-eyed view of what’s happening in Baghdad.

Ben asked a good question: “When exactly did the White House throw away its rose-colored glasses?”

That’s a good one, and I’d just add a couple more.

For several years, when Democratic critics of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq insisted that the White House was looking at the war through rose-colored glasses, the right responded that Dems were a) wrong; b) undermining the troops; and c) emboldening terrorists. Now that the White House is willing to concede that they used to look at Iraq through rose-colored glasses, does the Bush gang think Dems were right all along?

For that matter, hearing Fratto today, I kept thinking that I’ve heard the White House use this phrase before. And then I remembered.

* Tony Snow, August 17, 2006: “[F]or those of us who have seen the President behind the scenes, he doesn’t sit around and ask for people to put on rose-colored glasses.”

* Tony Snow, September 29, 2006: “President, again, is not looking through rose-colored glasses. He insists on getting the best intelligence [on Iraq] he can from his people on the field.”

* Tony Snow, December 18, 2006: “On the other hand, we don’t want to be accused of looking through rose colored glasses at what clearly is an unacceptable position within Iraq.”

* Tony Snow, February 15, 2007: “I don’t want to be accused of putting on rose-colored glasses. It’s going to be tough [in Iraq].”

* Tony Snow, September 12, 2007: “We don’t want anybody to look through rose-colored glasses, but we would like people to understand that there has been success [in Iraq].”

Now, however, the White House wants us to believe the White House was looking at Iraq though rose-colored glasses, but they’ve since been “thrown out.”

That’s good to know, but it sounds like one White House spokesperson believes a previous White House spokesperson didn’t know what he was talking about.

You know, I was thinking: we need another cliche to help us think about Iraq. Good work.

  • I’d say, you know, “impeach” but apparently only not-very-serious people suggest that.

  • Oh Tony, you may have thrown away your glasses, but you haven’t removed your head from your ass.

  • Oh Tony, you may have thrown away your glasses, but you haven’t removed your head from your ass.

    Can the latter likewise be said of Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern following her recent claims of a Greater Homosexual Conspiracy “worse than terrorism” vis-a-vis the “antient and pecuilar soverignty and soverign identity” of the United States?

  • Tony Snow, September 29, 2006: “President, again, is not looking through rose-colored glasses. He insists on getting the best intelligence [on Iraq] he can from his people on the field.”

    And then there is the front page/above the fold headline from yesterday’s Wash Post:

    Bush Listens Closely To His Man in Iraq
    “For months, a debate raged at the top levels of the Bush administration over how quickly to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. But the discussion shut down soon after President Bush flew to Camp Arifjan, a dusty Army base near the Iraqi border in Kuwait, in January for a face-to-face meeting with the man whose counsel on the war he values most: Gen. David H. Petraeus.”

    OK I concede. Hillary was right. Words are cheap!

  • I’m sure the press corpse will let McCain keep his pair of rose-colored glasses, because he’s a military man and military men can’t be accused of giving rosy projections, even when they repeatedly lie about Baghdad shopping sprees and make projections that look like floats in the Rose Bowl Parade.

    Hopefully America recognizes the tune of the rosey scenario waltz, but I’m not convinced yet.

  • 6. On April 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm, MsJoanne said:
    Does this mean we’re not going to bomb Iran now?

    No. They threw out their rose-colored glasses, remember? And just in time, because if they used rose-colored glasses on Iran, then we might be optimistic that we don’t have to go to war. Now that we’re no longer hopelessly optimistic, it’s war war war 24/7.

  • Does this mean we’re not going to bomb Iran now?

    Of course not. That war will be EASY.

    We’ll be greeted as liberators.

  • I ran this in a previous post (rather late in the day). I need to put it here.

    I just heard what must be (for me) about the fiftieth caller to a progressive radio station saying he was a pilot who got shot down over Vietnam. Every single one of them said they did not regard themselves as a hero for that. Nearly all said they were just doing their duty. None of them thinks John McCain should be exploiting his being shot down, especially (many of them say) by showing films of himself undergoing interrogration.

    McCain = War Mongering Dude.

  • Sheesh, you people are totally missing Tony Fratto’s point. He did not mention all the other rose-colored things they didn’t throw out. Like rose-colored contacts. Those are so good, they increase the myopia. So no MsJoanne, it doesn’t mean we won’t attack Iran. It means we will attach Iran, and it’ll be even easier than a cake walk. More like a fluffer-nutter walk,or a cupcake walk…… or something.

  • The new top question on the Bush Press Secretary job application:

    Do you look good under a bus?

  • This is Bush, they tossed out the rose colored glasses and replaced them with reality distorting goggles. This happens every four years.

  • It’s about time they replaced those rose colored glasses. I try to get mine replaced once a year. If I waited seven years, I’d go blind.

  • Busted! I would NOT want this Benen guy looking into my comments for consistency, but working in the PR field, Fratto was keyed-in to the reporter’s question, “the surge was — you know, had this pretty rosy cast” and just got diarrhea of the mouth. All Fratto needed was this cue about rosiness and he just took the ball and ran with it. I’ve been on both sides of this equation and know how easy it is to bite on the worm tossed in front of you.

    CB is absolutely right to nail Fratto for these comments, but they really mean not a damn thing in reality because Fratto was just inspired to have a “clever” turn of phrase. Don’t worry folks, same old sh*t to come out of the Bush White House.

  • Fools. Rose-colored glasses are so-ooo pre-9/11. Didn’t you know we’re in the age of the rose-colored Bubble? The rose-colored MSM? RoseSpeak? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue being the address of the RH*?

    *RoseHouse

  • Comments are closed.