4 ms·

I always felt bad for Rumsfeld (not Cheney) being the target of so much mockery for that comment. I disliked him style and decisions as Secretary of Defense, bu

I always felt bad for Rumsfeld (not Cheney) being the target of so much mockery for that comment. I disliked him style and decisions as Secretary of Defense, but that was one of the smartest and most realistic things he said. It's amazing to me how many people derided it as meaningless garbage when it self-evidently true and provided a worthwhile insight into the complexities of strategic decision-making.

dudinax 3y ago
He was lying about weapons of mass destruction. The context is that he'd previously said we had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction. So he's using a trivially true and non-interesting statement about "unknown unknowns" to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something. In other words, it was garbage response. He deserves mockery, scorn and a criminal trial.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  > to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something. I’m not sure that’s quite accurate, although it’s not that far off either. The full context is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.de... His “unknown unknowns” response was, to me, a basically fair if evasive response to whether there is any evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and terrorists as far as supplying WMDs. He essentially said “we don’t know what we don’t know.” To me the more damning answer is the follow up later in the conference, where he strongly implied that he has evidence but can’t disclose it. That just misled the public and is far worse than the “unknown unknowns” comment in my view.
  - dudinax 3y ago
    He'd already said for months previous that he knew Iraq had WMDs and were planning to supply terrorists.

dudinax 3y ago

He was lying about weapons of mass destruction. The context is that he'd previously said we had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction. So he's using a trivially true and non-interesting statement about "unknown unknowns" to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something. In other words, it was garbage response. He deserves mockery, scorn and a criminal trial.

D13Fd 3y ago
> to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something. I’m not sure that’s quite accurate, although it’s not that far off either. The full context is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.de... His “unknown unknowns” response was, to me, a basically fair if evasive response to whether there is any evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and terrorists as far as supplying WMDs. He essentially said “we don’t know what we don’t know.” To me the more damning answer is the follow up later in the conference, where he strongly implied that he has evidence but can’t disclose it. That just misled the public and is far worse than the “unknown unknowns” comment in my view.
- dudinax 3y ago
  He'd already said for months previous that he knew Iraq had WMDs and were planning to supply terrorists.