Many
Faces of Donald Rumsfeld
By
Linda Diebel
23 April, 2003
WASHINGTONIn some of the most carefully chosen language since
Bill Clinton said, "It depends what you mean by is,'' U.S. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday denied the United States plans a
long-term military presence in Iraq.
Sort of.
"I have
never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq,
discussed in any meeting," said Rumsfeld, denying a New York Times
report that and here's where it gets rich didn't say the
United States is necessarily planning permanent bases in Iraq.
"The likelihood
of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's
never been discussed in my presence," Rumsfeld said. "To my
knowledge.''
Such delicious
obfuscation hasn't been relished in Washington since former U.S. president
Clinton took a grammatical stand when questioned about his relationship
with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Such linguistic
precision is taken only with issues of the highest human importance.
That was sex;
this is war.
Yesterday's
Pentagon briefing was, even by the surreal standards of the Iraqi war,
a high-water mark for "Rummy" watchers, truly an out-of-body
experience.
For 40 minutes,
Rumsfeld, 70, and at the height of his political power, played to the
media, switching at will from steely-eyed crusader to quipster to shuffling
"aw-shucks-I'm-not-smart-enough-to-answer-that" bumbler.
He talked and
talked and talked, clearly loving every moment. He flirted. "Nah,
nah, you should see me when I'm on fire," he said, his voice a
leer, as he responded to a female reporter.
The reporter
had suggested she didn't want to put words in his mouth because "You're
on fire already."
"Nah, not
even close," said Rumsfeld to chortles and hoots.
The atmosphere
was chummy, a private club.
Rumsfeld danced,
shadow-boxed and got himself into a state of high dudgeon, practically
spitting rage, over his denial of what he said The New York Times story
said, which wasn't what it said at all.
The story, which
ran Sunday and quoted "senior Defense officials," reported
the U.S. plans to leave a post-war military footprint in the region,
which could range from fully-operational bases to "just plain access"
in future crisis.
"Let me
get this off my chest," began Rumsfeld, getting to what was clearly
the reason for his presence at yesterday's briefing. "That article
probably took the award as world-class thumb-sucker of the year."
One can almost
imagine him in his office, chuckling to himself as he rehearsed the
performance.
Yes, he said,
the United States is operating four bases in Iraq, but they are for
"humanitarian purposes."
And, yes, the
Pentagon is "in discussion" about postwar plans. But it was
the optics he didn't like.
"Any impression
that is left that the United States plans some sort of a permanent presence
in the country, I think, is a signal to the people of that country that
is inaccurate and unfortunate because we don't plan to function as an
occupier," he said.
"We went
there to change a regime, we went there to find weapons of mass destruction,
we went in there to stop them from threatening their neighbors, and
we have said precisely what we're there for, and it's not what the article
said."
One of the day's
tougher questions took up a good 10 minutes.
When will you
tell us the war's over?
Ah, geez, my
goodness ... you could almost hear the synapses firing. The question
was, as it has been for U.S. President George W. Bush, a real stumper.
Bush says he
has to wait until Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the Iraqi
operation, tells him.
In Baghdad,
Franks, smoking a cigar at one of Saddam Hussein's old palaces last
week, said he's waiting on Bush. Rumsfeld said it's up to U.S. Gen.
Richard (Dick) Myers and others at Central Command.
"My understanding,
and Dick, you calibrate me," he began, turning to sidekick Myers,
chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is that you have a period
where you have hostilities, and you can then go into a period where
you have a move towards a stabilizing period in some portion of the
country, and ..."
The reporter
pushed, and Rumsfeld turned cold.
"Ultimately,
at some point it will be over," he said. "But is it over now?
NO!"
It was a day
for guffaws.
The story of
the 7-year-old guerrilla girl however, came as a downer. Myers was asked
about the weekend report of a little girl handing over a remnant from
a cluster bomb weaponry condemned by human rights groups
to four American soldiers near Baghdad.
The fragment,
the size of a soft drink can, exploded injuring the soldiers and child
alike.
In Baghdad,
U.S. Col. Michael Linningham, commander of the 101st Airborne's 3rd
Brigade, told reporters it was an accident. The child thought she was
doing a good thing.
Linningham was
on the scene. Since then, however, his report has been massaged through
Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and popped into the spin
dry cycle at the Pentagon.
Yesterday, not
surprisingly, Myers had a different take.
"The story
we got this morning is that the little girl handed over what was an
improvised explosive device to do harm to the four soldiers," he
said.
"It wasn't
a try to return a portion of ordnance ... She tried to run away."
A 7-year-old?
asked a reporter.
``Exxxx-ACTLY!''
said Myers, crisply.
And so, to sum
up yesterday's Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld said the United States has
not found weapons of mass destruction, has not found Saddam Hussein,
has no idea when the war will be over and has no plans for Iraq's future.
But it has the 7-year-old
nailed.