Are you TRYING to be funny?... or are you really that much in love with Bush? You are really entertaining to read on the forum... I am sure I am not the only one laughing everytime I read your posts. BTW... Clinton's the devil But atleast its good to know you voted for him twice, lol.

Kerry '04

peace

I think he's an alter ego of Snibble's.

B

for sure

__________________
72 W114/M130

RedMeat cartoon

Yea, and Bush is my best friend

Snibble, at first I thought that Rumsfeld quote was kind of cool--a shot at Rumsfeldiann weird-speak, which is on par with Greenspan-speak. After I took the time to parse that Rumsfeld quote, it made sense.

Have you parsed it?

B

After reading it for the 3rd time.. it kinda made sense to me. I just like the quote because its a collection of words that really mean $h!t.

I guess I like it because it is so poorly structured, yet describes my professional life pretty accurately.

Bot

Actually the quote being attributed to Rumsfeld is not one of his originals (at least not until he notes we learn about some unknown unknowns every year), and it quite accurately describes the human understanding of the universe. The quote is not poorly worded, as if you take any of the words out the meaning changes drastically, and if you understand what is meant I doubt you could convey the message with fewer, different words.

Mr. Rumsfeld should also be aware that for every individual the number of events, or potential events that fall into each category are different. Therefore, it is a good practice to try to minimize the unknowns of both varieties before you jump into something. A proven method for achieving this is to get opposing thoughts on what you intend to do from as broad a group of peers as you can find. Then, without dismissing the opposing or critical views just because they are critical or opposing to yours, try to resolve the concerns and cautions you hear before you step into the realm of asking the unknowns to confront you. War is one of those arenas where the known and unknown unknowns lurk, and the guy who is confronted by the fewest usually does best.

Merely quoting another person's effective summation of the state of human understanding of the universe is of little value. Understanding it and using to guide your decisions so they are wiser and more compelling is of value. I am waiting for evidence of the latter. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

I'd guess that ol' Rummy would completely agree with everything you said...from his side just as you say it from yours.

B

Botnst,

You are absolutely right. But that is because ol' Rummy would consult only himself on the subject. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

" But that is because ol' Rummy would consult only himself on the subject."

Your mental telepathy is amazing. I'm shocked and awed.

B

The quote does not make sense. It is internally inconsistent. More importantly, why does the Secretary of Defense waste our time on word games whose only purpose is to make him look clever.

The first sentence says, "It is a case of knowns, known knowns, and unknown unknowns." Well, apparently, that is not true because by the third sentence, he has added a new category - the known unknowns.

I believe, and hope, that Rumsfeld's smug self-assurance act has worn thin with a lot of powerful people.

I also disagree with your crack on Jim Smith regarding his powers of mental telepathy. Smith's accusation has merit. Rumsfeld, for whatever reason, does not consult with people outside his immediate circle.

As for Jim Smith's comment that it would be hard to convey Rumsfeld's thoughts in fewer words, I have two comments. First, who cares? The quote does not convey any information not already known to any high school kid. Second, many of those same high school kids probably could come up with a more concise statement that actually makes sense.

He's the modern Robert McNamara, a supposed great intellectual hollow to the core, blinded by lockstep idealogy.

Many people in the press and in Congress never learned to ask a coherent question. Congressional hearings, with 5 minutes per side, are silly. Each congressman/senator gives a 2-minute speach, followed by a 1-minute unintelligible question. Then the witness gives a 3-minute non-responsive answer. By then, the red light is on, so they go on to the next questioner. It is a silly exercise.

But Ted Kennedy's inability to ask a good question does not excuse Rumsfeld's foolish arrogance. One example of what I mean comes from his appearance on one of the Sunday morning shows earlier this year. One of the hosts said that before we invaded Iraq the administration portrayed Saddam as an imminent or immediate threat (I forget which of those two words were used). Rumsfeld stopped him and said in his dismissive way that he never said any such thing and that he did not know how that accuastion became part of the "folk lore" (his words). Unfortunately for Mr. Smug, they had video tape of Rumsfeld using the precise word that he just denied using. Maybe he forgot using that word, but a more likely explanation is that he thought he could make his host look foolish for buying into all that silly "folk lore".

Another way Rumsfeld's arrogance comes through is his use of clever half truths to mislead. There are many examples. One that comes to mind was his pre-war statement that al Qaida was operating in Iraq. That statement is true in the sense that al Qaida had people operating in northern Iraq. The statement was misleading, however, because Saddam had no control over that part of Iraq.

dculkin,

The quote is misquoted. The three categories are knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. It is not a Rumsfeld concept. I forget who originated it, but it is an accurate description of our understanding of the universe. In its original context it applied to our understanding of the physics of the universe.

The quote is not usually associated with political discussions, but does apply there as well. My point was that while true, and while demonstrating an awareness of the progression of knowns and unknowns from unknown unknowns to known items, it is not sufficient for Mr. Rumsfeld (or Ms. Rice) to sit back and let us get beaten to death by unknown unknowns and act like no one could ever have done any better.

Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)