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.
This is all completely true. Obviously him using that to justify invading Iraq despite lack of evidence is bullshit, but it seems like people are more making fun of the whole concept of unknown unknowns.
No, it's how bizarrely philosophical of an answer that was with regards to WMDs, invasion strategy, etc. It's the same comical level of cop-out to avoid saying "I might be wrong" that also got us the famous Bush Jr. "Fool me twice--can't get fooled again" line. Lots of extemporaneous political speaking centers around avoiding certain types of phrasing, and setting yourself up to be caught dead to rights being wrong in the future is one of the big ones you get taught to avoid verbalizing.
Rumsfeld couldn't answer questions about WMDs, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. with any form of "but hey I might be wrong, we'll see", because the second he was actually wrong it'd be the only thing saturating airwaves for weeks. So, you do wordy philosophical mush-mouthing that says "well, it's not our fault we didn't know, remember how I talked about unknown unknowns?"
It's in a sense a truism but it also pairs nicely with this quote about the location of WMDs (which was clearly total bullshit):
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
They both read with the energy of a guy who has to do a book report presentation who's trying to stream together a shit load of smart sounding truisms and basic knowledge that actually reveal how little he knows concretely and how he's just winging it and making shit up.
Do people make fun of the actual concept?
This is all completely true. Obviously him using that to justify invading Iraq despite lack of evidence is bullshit, but it seems like people are more making fun of the whole concept of unknown unknowns.
No, it's how bizarrely philosophical of an answer that was with regards to WMDs, invasion strategy, etc. It's the same comical level of cop-out to avoid saying "I might be wrong" that also got us the famous Bush Jr. "Fool me twice--can't get fooled again" line. Lots of extemporaneous political speaking centers around avoiding certain types of phrasing, and setting yourself up to be caught dead to rights being wrong in the future is one of the big ones you get taught to avoid verbalizing.
Rumsfeld couldn't answer questions about WMDs, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. with any form of "but hey I might be wrong, we'll see", because the second he was actually wrong it'd be the only thing saturating airwaves for weeks. So, you do wordy philosophical mush-mouthing that says "well, it's not our fault we didn't know, remember how I talked about unknown unknowns?"
It's in a sense a truism but it also pairs nicely with this quote about the location of WMDs (which was clearly total bullshit):
They both read with the energy of a guy who has to do a book report presentation who's trying to stream together a shit load of smart sounding truisms and basic knowledge that actually reveal how little he knows concretely and how he's just winging it and making shit up.