quietlife.net

rumsfeldian

25 Feb 2004

Man, of all the members of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld seems to be without a doubt the absolute worst at saying something that says nothing at all. Or maybe the best. I am not sure.

Here’s Rumsfeld, speaking eloquently on our resolute, decisive course of action on the recent crisis in Haiti:

Needless to say, everyone is hopeful that the situation, which tends to ebb and flow down there, will stay below a certain threshold, and that there’s – we have no plans to do anything. By that, I don’t mean we have no plans. Obviously, we have plans to do everything in the world that we can think of. But we – there’s no intention at the present time, or no reason to believe, that any of the thinking that goes into these things year in and year out would have to be utilized.

Did you get that? No?

Translation: “Haiti? Where the fuck is Haiti?”

Comments

Erik — February 25, 2004 at 13:14 · reply

He’s saying that they have a plan they can execute if the crisis reaches a certain point, but they’re not currently expecting it to.

I actually really like Rumsfeld’s way of speaking–what other people see as obfuscating, I see as cautious and, to the extent possible, precise about complicated topics. This quote isn’t a great illustration, but even here he’s, well, he’s a lot more articulate off the cuff than the president, anyway.

My favorite example is the widely cited “known unknowns” quote. Slate ridiculed it as “poetry”, other people regarded it as evasion. But if you actually read it, he’s saying something very specific and very true about the limits of intelligence.

(Um, you know, like spying intelligence. Not the limits of being smart.)

He then proceeds to the evasion, but the “unknown unknowns” part itself is brilliant.

cwage — February 25, 2004 at 13:26 · reply

My favorite example is the widely cited “known unknowns” quote. Slate ridiculed it as “poetry”, other people regarded it as evasion. But if you actually read it, he’s saying something very specific and very true about the limits of intelligence.

It sure looks like evasion to me. He was saying something very specific and very true about the limits of intelligence which are .. well, pretty obvious. Of course there are things we know and things we don’t, and things we know we don’t know and things we don’t know we don’t know. But let’s save the philosophy until after the press conference.

The question wasn’t about known unknowns, or unknown unknowns. It was about “evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations”, which, at one time, was something that (until the neoconservatives succeeded in pushing pre-emption as a defining policy) would have had to have been a “known known”, or at least a “known unknown” before we acted on it.

What Rumsfeld is really saying there, albeit in an evasive manner, is that an “unknown unknown” is now an acceptable form of intelligence we can act on.

Erik — February 25, 2004 at 13:54 · reply

I disagree with your “of course”. People on both sides of the debate about the war were all too likely to pretend or believe that a lack of information equates to support for their own position.

War advocates would say that since we can’t tell what Saddam is doing, we should invade just to make sure. War opponents–and you know I was one–would say that since we can’t tell what Saddam is doing, there’s no cause to invade.

The honest among us would say, yes, it’s a calculated risk; there are things we don’t know, and if it turns out we’re wrong about what they are, something very bad could happen. We just don’t think that’s likely.

But there sure were those who were not honest–or were not very good at logic–on both sides.

Ah, good times.

Thanks! Your comment has been submitted and will appear shortly.

Leave a comment