HUH?

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Donald Rumsfeld was award the “Foot in Mouth” award for the following:

“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.”

I still think he could have salvaged it if he’d just added, “Yknow?” at the end.

PAD

39 comments on “HUH?”

  1. Reminds me of my soon to be gone (Thank G-D) Prime Minister most famous quote commenting on evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    “A proof is a proof, and, when you have a good proof, it’s proven.”

  3. Did Crazy Harry jump out and bop Rumsfeld on the head after he said that? For some reason, that’s the only way I can see that press conference ending…

    That OTHER John Byrne

  4. Just out of curiosity, what exactly WAS he trying to say? The best I can get is that the “known unknowns” would be things like the number of enemy combatants and such–you know that ther is something there but you can’t know the details.

    The “unknown unknowns” are the things you don’t even see coming (and then, when it happens, everyone turns into The Amazing Kreskin and claims that they juts KNEW this would happen).

    But what do I know?

  5. What the heck?

    Sounds like he was trying to be profound but ended up sounding like an idiot.

  7. You mean it’s been that long and he hasn’t exploded from the mental pressure yet? I’m impressed… (and joking… I do not endorse the mental decompression of anyone. Do NOT try this at home!)

    tOjb

  8. \\The best I can get is that the “known unknowns” would be things like the number of enemy combatants and such–you know that ther is something there but you can’t know the details.

    The “unknown unknowns” are the things you don’t even see coming (and then, when it happens, everyone turns into The Amazing Kreskin and claims that they juts KNEW this would happen).

    \\

    That’s what I made of it — the statement doesn’t seem that opaque to me, really.

  10. Im not a huge fan of Rummy. He only reads what he is given. Just like everyone else. It all depends on your speech writer and if it was off the top of his head then, so what? Meh.

  11. First of all, shouldn’t this quote be ineligible for winning the Foot In The Mouth award for 2003, given that it was said on February 12, 2002?

    Secondly, I first saw that quote when it was published in a book titled “Pieces of Intelligence : The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld” by Hart Seely (available on Amazon.com for only $10.36).

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/ has excerpts of the book and its poetry, if you’re curious.

    UmberGryphon

    (who wonders if the “long, hard slog” memo would make good poetry)

  12. PAD:

    Donald Rumsfeld was award the “Foot in Mouth” award…

    Is it ironic that a professional writer screws up a sentence about someone making a screwed up speech?

    : )

    Kidding aside, I think that Rumsfeld was trying to say that by definition, it’s impossible to plan for the unknown. It was a poor way to get to his point though.

  13. His statement was clumsily worded, but it makes perfect sense to me. Here’s a good example of what the Sam Hëll he’s talking about:

    Last night, I was getting out of my car in a parking space next to another car. I knew that carelessly flinging my door open might cause it to hit (and probably scratch) the car next to me, so I carefully found the place in the hinge that wouldn’t just randomly swing the door open. That’s compensating for the “known unknown,” i.e., whether the door would swing into the other door on its own. The “unknown unknown” was the strong gust of wind that pushed my car door into the car next to me while I was getting out of the car. I had no way of knowing it needed to be compensated for.

    My sister, who was riding with me, was the aforementioned Kreskin, who told me I should have forseen the gust of wind.

  14. Lots more ‘Rummyisms’ available as sound files here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml

    Not as fumble-tongued as the one given the award, but worthy of note is this one, for its dazzling specificity:

    “We know where [the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” — March 30, 2003

    Oh, and Rumsfeld was quoted as finding the above-linked audio collection of his quotes as “hilarious” – just wanted to set that straight before someone starts pointing fingers.

  15. “He only reads what he is given. Just like everyone else.”

    Like any other idiot. Someone with a relatively functional intellect would take a minute to read what he’s given before going up and making a goof of himself. He doesn’t work for the writers, they work for him. And if he doesn’t like what they’ve written, he can, and should, make changes.

  16. Like any other idiot. Someone with a relatively functional intellect would take a minute to read what he’s given before going up and making a goof of himself. He doesn’t work for the writers, they work for him. And if he doesn’t like what they’ve written, he can, and should, make changes.

    He was probably too busy checking around the podium for naked statues to pay enough attention to the speech.

  18. I take the minority view on this one. It makes perfect sense to me. It strikes me as basic logic.

    If I say “I don’t know what God is like,” then that’s a known unknown. If I say “I know what God is like,” and I’m flat wrong, then that’s an unknown unknown.

    All things considered, unknown unknowns are far more dangerous than known unknowns. Knowing what your unknowns are leads to science and reason. Not knowing your unknowns leads to bigotry and blind hatred.

    I had a little fun with this quote in one of my comics, but I don’t understand why everyone picks on it. It just sounds confusing until you THINK about it a little. Most Dubya quotes, by contrast, get dumber and dumber the longer you think them through.

  19. For a foot in the mouth, this one by Carter tops it:

    Mr. Carter, defeated in his quest for re-election by Ronald Reagan in 1980, speculated that “had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region, we could have moved to a final solution.”

  21. Long-winded, but if anyone actually bothered reading it they’ll notice that he is just explaining a pretty basic point… just using a lot of similar words to do so.

    Arnold Schwazzeneger’s mouthful was a lot worthier of this comdemnation: “I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.”

  22. Meanwhile, Dr. Howard Dean shows off the excellence of elocution that will stand him well in the upcoming debates with GW:

    “Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons.”

    Wow! The Soviet Union! Maybe we can also get the Hessians and Yugoslavians to help.

  23. Jim Burdo: For a foot in the mouth, this one by Carter tops it:

    [etc.]

    Yeesh, I’m not even sure what that quote means. I’d assume it has something to do with the Iran hostage crisis, except that Carter negotiated their return before the end of his presidency, so that makes no sense.

    That said, is there a source for this quote? Googling doesn’t yield a single reference to it that I can find. With all the fake quotes that float around the net, I tend to look on unverified quotes with skepticism.

  24. Bill Mulligan: Meanwhile, Dr. Howard Dean shows off the excellence of elocution that will stand him well in the upcoming debates with GW:

    Can’t find a source for this one, either. Though if it’s very new, maybe Google hasn’t indexed it yet.

  25. Rumsfeld has an interesting way of saying a lot of things, it’s one of the reasons I like him.

    But when things are taken out of context, ignoring the occasional verbal mistakes that happens to nearly everyone, they can be made to sound ridiculous or stupid, especially in print media.

  26. Dean made that comment on about the Soviet Union on Hardball. You can find the transcript on the MSNBC.com website.

  27. As a public service,here’s the link to the Howard Dean quote on msnbc.com.

    The transcript is clearly a full transcript, with all of the stuttering and hesitations that almost everyone has when they speak left in. An unusual form of transcribing, since it tends to make anyone look bad. (The host doesn’t come off as especially bright in this form of transcript, either.)

    The formatting is rather wonky, which makes me wonder how reliable the transcript is. There are some segments where the start-stop nature of speech patterns seems poorly described. For instance, I bet that “Also, we have less-fewer levers much” could be better represented as, “Also, we have less… [we have] fewer levers… [we have] much…” And then he stops and starts again, with “The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union.”

    The only really weird part of his statement is references to the Soviet Union. But, well, he’s probably referring to the “former Soviet states” and just used the outdated term.

    His points, at least, seem reasonable enough.

    Probably he was worried that he’d be misunderestimated.

  28. Michael,

    Yeah, I noticed that they transcribed it exactly as written–no easier way to make someone look stupid. I suspect many of the great quotes of history would look far less impressive if we included all the stutters and “uh”s “er”s and “by crikey”s in them.

    That said, even if one ignores the Soviet Union gaffe–and I suspect that if Bush had said it there would be some who would make merry fun with his demonstration of ignorance–the idea that we make the world safe from nuclear terror by buying all the available technology seems rather goofy to me. Its like running on a platform of ending drug use by buying up the entire production of cocaine from the drug lords.

    Couldn’t the Russians (or, if you’re Dean, the Soviets) just, you know, sell to both the US and Iran? And wouldn’t this just encourage lots of folks to go into the business of selling dangerous crap to the U.S.? Where are we gonna put the ballistic missles from Upper Pago Pago anyway? Not in MY backyard!

  31. That Rumsfield quote is almost as bad as what Howard Dean said on Hardball the other night, saying that the Soviet Union was selling arms to Iran. He said it about four times, too. And this guy is the Democrats’ top contender President…

  33. Does anyone remember Gray Davis appealing to the UFO vote? Here was his quote:

    “My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state, ah, we have the sons and daughters of people from every planet, of every country on earth, in this state.”

    I don’t make as big a deal about these gaffes because I figure anyone who talks as often as politicians do is bound to open mouth and insert foot eventually. The press seems to play it up more if a conservative does it though. They are funny sometimes.

  34. Bill Mulligan: the idea that we make the world safe from nuclear terror by buying all the available technology seems rather goofy to me. Its like running on a platform of ending drug use by buying up the entire production of cocaine from the drug lords.

    I dunno. The tech in the former Soviet states is there regardless of what we do. I’d rather have us buy it than Iran. Or whomever.

    Couldn’t the Russians (or, if you’re Dean, the Soviets) just, you know, sell to both the US and Iran?

    Sure they could, but we can probably make a better offer than Iran. Plus we’re probably less likely than Iran to, y’know, turn around and use the tech on the guys that sold it to us.

    I’m not sure how capable many of those states are of building more bombs, either. Most of them I think are just selling off materials from weapons left in place when the Soviet Union broke up.

    And wouldn’t this just encourage lots of folks to go into the business of selling dangerous crap to the U.S.?

    I thought we were the world’s arms supplier!

    Where are we gonna put the ballistic missles from Upper Pago Pago anyway? Not in MY backyard!

    Better in my backyard than that of some wingnut dictator, that’s what I always say.

  35. Michael says– I thought we were the world’s arms supplier!

    Well sure (though the claim that we had supplied the very weapons used against us in Iraq turned out to be bogus). But at least we’re selling stuff governments want. Dean suggests we buy weapons just so the other kids don’t get to play with them.

    It won’t work. I disagree that this will only be the leftover weapons the Soviets forgot to pick up off the backyard. Any industrial nation can make crude nuclear weapons. It’s just that the risks outweigh the rewards. That will change if Dr. Dean gets his way.

    I’m reminded of a gun buyback they had once where people were trading in useless junk guns and using the cash to buy better ones. Good intentions must yield to bitter reality.

    We already have one country, North Korea, that has based its economy on the idea of rolling around in šhìŧ and making the rest of us pay to have it move downwind. Let’s not encourage that particular model.

  37. Perhaps we should remember the ancent Vulcan saying: Beware the fool who does not know, what he does not know.

  38. PAD,

    You know exactly what Rumsfeld was trying to say. If not you’re quite a bit less intelligent than you come across in your blog and your writing.

    See this article from the Guardian (who is no fan of Rumsfeld):

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4810649-110878,00.html

    So I can only assume it was a disingenuous partisan attack. Sad.

    There are many legitimate issues to critique the Bush administration on. Perpetuating erroneous critiques only makes you look foolish and tends to weaken your legitimate arguments in the minds of your readers.

  39. Whoa, ZWilson, slow your roll! For someone so up in arms about misunderstanding Rumsfeld’s quote, you seem awfully ready to both willfully misinterpret PAD’s meaning AND put a lot of words in PAD’s mouth.

    First off, could it be that PAD was just sharing the joke? Rummy himself has had a good chuckle at his misspoken words (as has been noted above), as would anyone who does a lot of public speaking. Sometimes you say things that could have been said a lot better, and you have to look back and laugh at what came out of your mouth.

    Second, yes, the English in Rumsfeld’s quote was technically correct, but you can’t honestly look at that quote and say there isn’t a better way to convey its meaning. In the end, it’s not about what Rumsfeld meant, but what he said. By now, we all know what Rummy meant… calling PAD stupid for maybe not getting it doesn’t lend any weight to your assertions and makes you look bad to boot.

    Third, “disingenuous partisan attack”? Now, if PAD had ended the entry with something along the lines of “see what an idiot Rumsfeld is!?”, your assertion might have a leg to stand on.

    Fourth, quoting an opinion piece from the Guardian offers little in the way of proof that the Foot in the Mouth Award is an “erroneous critique.” At best, it’s ‘my cited opinions are better than your cited opinions.’ Besides, Brits have about as much right to criticize American English as Americans do to criticize the British standard: which is precisely none at all. They’re two different standards; what’s correct by one isn’t always correct in the other.

    Bottom line, the quote is a bit of a tongue-tie, and as outrageous verbal missteps go, that one’s a doozie. So can we just have an innocent chuckle over it and move on with our lives, instead of attacking everyone who comments on it of being blatantly partisan?

    tOjb

Comments are closed.