4 ms·

What was the nature of the criticism anyway?

j_baker 16y ago
Rumsfeld wasn't exactly known for being straightforward with reporters, and it's easy to get the impression that it's an evasive, nonsensical answer. It even won an award for that! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3254852.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3254852.stm
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  I'll buy that. It makes sense that one who evades the facts of reality would evade questions as well. EDIT: Rumsfeld was in denial over what it took to do the job of invading Iraq. And he never caught on. The "surge" was simply sending enough manpower to do the job. Finally. Not to say it made any sense to invade Iraq to begin with.
  - jordanb 16y ago
    It's worth observing that the surge was part of Condoleezza Rice's "clear, hold build" strategy. Rumsfeld was fired and she was brought in to implement it. I think that should help put Rumsfeld and criticism of him in a little bit of context. Yes, he was a Bush administration official heavily involved in the Iraq war and got a lot of criticism from that. But he was in rare company by being someone who was fired in disgrace from the Bush administration as things came apart under his watch. The only other guy I can think of offhand who is in that group is Micheal Brown.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      Rumsfeld was replaced by Robert Gates after the mid term election in 2006. Rice was secretary of state for the entire second term.
      - jordanb 16y ago
        Sorry, yes, you're correct, Rice remained Secretary of State. But Rumsefeld's firing was a repudiation of his "Light Footprint" strategy in favor of the "Clear, Hold, Build" strategy being championed by Rice. http://books.google.com/books?id=dhff3C6xhvkC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=%22clear,+hold,+and+build%22+rice&source=bl&ots=Kawmdahcji&sig=ysKQQDz9IBvQ52y6NZt-wGDPgUY&hl=en&ei=_FExTPTFEYPcnAfFx_TXAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22clear%2C%20hold%2C%20and%20build%22%20rice&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=dhff3C6xhvkC&pg=PA271&#...
- _delirium 16y ago
  He might've gotten some negative rub-off from being in the Bush administration as well--- since Bush already had a reputation by that point for "Bushisms", people were sort of in the mindset to be looking for them.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Bushisms were malapropisms, often formed by mashing up half-misremembered cliches, like "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again!". Rumsfeld's quote has a much different flavor, rather like a confusing professor--everything he says is very carefully and meticulously correct, meaningful, applicable, and insightful, but he's talking so far above the audience's collective head, and assuming a familiarity with the subject that the audience doesn't have, that no real communication is accomplished. If Rumsfeld were more talented at this, and viewed more favorably, it would have been brilliant to use a half-applicable generality like that to evade the question. But for that to work, people have to get what you're saying. An impromptu lecture on black swan events might have been the way out, but Rummy talked too abstractly for the audience to get it.
DannoHung 16y ago
Q: Could I follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what you just said, please? In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations. Rumsfeld: Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are -- what was the word you used, Pam, earlier? Q: Free associate? (laughs) Rumsfeld: Yeah. They can -- (chuckles) -- they can do things I can't do. (laughter) Q: Excuse me. But is this an unknown unknown? Rumsfeld: I'm not -- Q: Because you said several unknowns, and I'm just wondering if this is an unknown unknown. Rumsfeld: I'm not going to say which it is. Q: Mr. Secretary, if you believe something -- Rumsfeld: Right here. Right here. Right here. Q: Mr. Secretary, point of clarification -- Rumsfeld: No, this is a promise. Q: -- I think under Wright's rules, that a point of clarification -- (laughter)
hugh3 16y ago
I've never fully understood. While the full context makes it clear that it's a bit of an evasive Humprey Appleby non-answer to the question, I doubt many people have ever heard the full context, and in any case evading questions asked by journalists is more or less a universal trait among politicians and political appointees. The best explanation I can come up with was that at that particular point in history there was a large ready-made audience who wanted something to make fun of Donald Rumsfeld about, and when that unusual quote came along they started repeating it among themselves until they managed to convince themselves that it was hilarious and that it totally confirmed all the bad things they already believed about Rumsfeld. Like a cat with a caption or a Russian guy singing "trololololo", it's not especially funny on its own, but if everybody around you thinks it's hilarious you can pretty much convince yourself of its value. A more contemporary example would be Sarah Palin's (entirely true, and somewhat relevant to the question being asked) claim that you can see Russia from Alaska. Many people seem to think this is hilarious and proof that Sarah Palin is an idiot, without really knowing why. (Don't get me started on the large number of people who apparently think she claimed to be able to see Russia from her house...) edit: In the interests of balance, I'll also mention that Al Gore's supposed claim to have "invented" the internet makes more sense in context, and even Bill Clinton's musings on the meaning of the word "is" is (or rather was) a perfectly reasonable attempt to split a semantic hair.

Rumsfeld wasn't exactly known for being straightforward with reporters, and it's easy to get the impression that it's an evasive, nonsensical answer. It even won an award for that! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3254852.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3254852.stm

stretchwithme 16y ago
I'll buy that. It makes sense that one who evades the facts of reality would evade questions as well. EDIT: Rumsfeld was in denial over what it took to do the job of invading Iraq. And he never caught on. The "surge" was simply sending enough manpower to do the job. Finally. Not to say it made any sense to invade Iraq to begin with.
- jordanb 16y ago
  It's worth observing that the surge was part of Condoleezza Rice's "clear, hold build" strategy. Rumsfeld was fired and she was brought in to implement it. I think that should help put Rumsfeld and criticism of him in a little bit of context. Yes, he was a Bush administration official heavily involved in the Iraq war and got a lot of criticism from that. But he was in rare company by being someone who was fired in disgrace from the Bush administration as things came apart under his watch. The only other guy I can think of offhand who is in that group is Micheal Brown.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    Rumsfeld was replaced by Robert Gates after the mid term election in 2006. Rice was secretary of state for the entire second term.
    - jordanb 16y ago
      Sorry, yes, you're correct, Rice remained Secretary of State. But Rumsefeld's firing was a repudiation of his "Light Footprint" strategy in favor of the "Clear, Hold, Build" strategy being championed by Rice. http://books.google.com/books?id=dhff3C6xhvkC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=%22clear,+hold,+and+build%22+rice&source=bl&ots=Kawmdahcji&sig=ysKQQDz9IBvQ52y6NZt-wGDPgUY&hl=en&ei=_FExTPTFEYPcnAfFx_TXAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22clear%2C%20hold%2C%20and%20build%22%20rice&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=dhff3C6xhvkC&pg=PA271&#...
_delirium 16y ago
He might've gotten some negative rub-off from being in the Bush administration as well--- since Bush already had a reputation by that point for "Bushisms", people were sort of in the mindset to be looking for them.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Bushisms were malapropisms, often formed by mashing up half-misremembered cliches, like "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again!". Rumsfeld's quote has a much different flavor, rather like a confusing professor--everything he says is very carefully and meticulously correct, meaningful, applicable, and insightful, but he's talking so far above the audience's collective head, and assuming a familiarity with the subject that the audience doesn't have, that no real communication is accomplished. If Rumsfeld were more talented at this, and viewed more favorably, it would have been brilliant to use a half-applicable generality like that to evade the question. But for that to work, people have to get what you're saying. An impromptu lecture on black swan events might have been the way out, but Rummy talked too abstractly for the audience to get it.

DannoHung 16y ago

Q: Could I follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what you just said, please? In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations. Rumsfeld: Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are -- what was the word you used, Pam, earlier? Q: Free associate? (laughs) Rumsfeld: Yeah. They can -- (chuckles) -- they can do things I can't do. (laughter) Q: Excuse me. But is this an unknown unknown? Rumsfeld: I'm not -- Q: Because you said several unknowns, and I'm just wondering if this is an unknown unknown. Rumsfeld: I'm not going to say which it is. Q: Mr. Secretary, if you believe something -- Rumsfeld: Right here. Right here. Right here. Q: Mr. Secretary, point of clarification -- Rumsfeld: No, this is a promise. Q: -- I think under Wright's rules, that a point of clarification -- (laughter)

hugh3 16y ago

I've never fully understood. While the full context makes it clear that it's a bit of an evasive Humprey Appleby non-answer to the question, I doubt many people have ever heard the full context, and in any case evading questions asked by journalists is more or less a universal trait among politicians and political appointees. The best explanation I can come up with was that at that particular point in history there was a large ready-made audience who wanted something to make fun of Donald Rumsfeld about, and when that unusual quote came along they started repeating it among themselves until they managed to convince themselves that it was hilarious and that it totally confirmed all the bad things they already believed about Rumsfeld. Like a cat with a caption or a Russian guy singing "trololololo", it's not especially funny on its own, but if everybody around you thinks it's hilarious you can pretty much convince yourself of its value. A more contemporary example would be Sarah Palin's (entirely true, and somewhat relevant to the question being asked) claim that you can see Russia from Alaska. Many people seem to think this is hilarious and proof that Sarah Palin is an idiot, without really knowing why. (Don't get me started on the large number of people who apparently think she claimed to be able to see Russia from her house...) edit: In the interests of balance, I'll also mention that Al Gore's supposed claim to have "invented" the internet makes more sense in context, and even Bill Clinton's musings on the meaning of the word "is" is (or rather was) a perfectly reasonable attempt to split a semantic hair.