# Rumsfeld's "Unknown unknowns" remark **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 6, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387 "2003-12-06T16:10:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![FlyingScotsman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@FlyingScotsman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingScotsman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/1 "2003-12-06T16:10:15Z")
Okay, by now a lot of people’s inboxes are likely being peppered by the news that the Guardian (a British newspaper) that Donald Rumsfeld was awarded the dubious Plain English Campaign’s “Foot in Mouth Award”. > **[Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns take prize](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/02/usa.johnezard)** > > The Plain English Campaign's award for most baffling remark by a public figure yesterday went to an old master of obfuscation, Donald Rumsfeld. I attempted to research this quote for verification (frankly, I do NOT consider reports in a newspaper with a considerable degree of anti-American bias to be enough). I have NOT been able to come up with an independent confirmation of this quote; it was allegedly (according to various sources) made in June or July 2002, and I have traced variations of this quote as far back as January 2001 by George Will instead of Rumsfeld. Also, all the news report links I have found used for attribution for this quote are 1) on non-American news sites (Reuters, Australia, etc.), and 2) expired or removed. Both of these wave red flags as a possible propagandistic urban legend. I am NOT taking sides on the war, Rumsfeld, etc. I only want to find the actual origin of this quote–the date, the occasion, where Rumsfeld made this remark and to whom, etc. Quotes from a blog or website are not acceptable; I will take multiple references to the same reports in multiple news sources as verification. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/2 "2003-12-06T16:16:39Z")
On the day the award was announced, CNN replayed their videotape of the news conference where Rumsfeld said it. I can’t find it on their Videopass site, but a tape definitely exists. It’s not an urban legend. ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/3 "2003-12-06T16:58:38Z")
[This site](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3254852.stm) has an audio link enabling you to hear it yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/4 "2003-12-06T16:59:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **Rumsfeld** : Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, 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. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. > > And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are – what was the word you used, Pam, earlier? > > Question: Free associate? (laughs) > > Rumsfeld: Yeah. They can – (chuckles) – they can do things I can’t do. (laughter) > > Question: Excuse me. But is this an unknown unknown? > > Rumsfeld: I’m not – [Transcript of Defense Department Briefing](http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021208.htm) 12 February 2002 ---
**Author:** ![aerodave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f08c70/32.png) [@aerodave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aerodave)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/5 "2003-12-06T17:24:32Z")
I’ve heard of this quote before the news came out. It was quoted by my organization’s two-star commander in a newsletter some time ago. I also seem to remember seeing it in a news article when he first said it during the war. I realize that my lack of concrete citation isn’t doing your question any good, but I am pretty confident the British publication isn’t making it up. I don’t see what’s so confusing about it, anyway. There are things we know we don’t know, and things we _don’t_ know we don’t know. It’s a very important and understandable point. What I don’t like in that article is when they said > [@](#): > > …62-word attempt to clarify a point to a _defence_ department meeting: I work for DoD, and am currently working on a research program with the MoD. And in my correspondence and reporting, I have enough courtesy, respect, and intelligence to spell it “Ministry of Defence,” since that is the organization’s name. I expect the Brits to call our organization the “Department of Defense,” whether they like the spelling or not, because that’s our goddamned name. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/6 "2003-12-06T17:29:57Z")
It sounds comical, but it’s a perfectly fair assessment of the limitations of espionage and intelligence. Also, it’s ridiculously easy for Monday-morning quarterbacks to spot patterns _after_ the attack has taken place. If Rumsfeld had rehearsed the mini-speech in advance, I’m sure he could have made it sound more coherent, but there’s nothing about it that deserves heaps of derision. ---
**Author:** ![fortytwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f9ae1b/32.png) [@fortytwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fortytwo)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/7 "2003-12-06T20:20:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*… If Rumsfeld had rehearsed the mini-speech in advance, I’m sure he could have made it sound more coherent, but there’s nothing about it that deserves heaps of derision. \*\* Heaven forbid if the day ever arrives when we can’t have a laugh at a politician (or anybody else) mangling our language Here are a couple of other winners of the Foot In Mouth Award: Glen Hoddle (England football manager): ‘I do not believe that. At this moment in time, if that changes in years to come I don’t know, but what happens here today and changes as we go along that is part of life’s learning and part of your inner beliefs. But at this moment in time I did not say them things and at the end of the day I want to put that on record because it has hurt people.’ Alicia Silverstone : ‘I think that [the film] ‘Clueless’ was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it’s true lightness.’ V ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/8 "2003-12-06T20:33:13Z")
But it’s NOT a mangling of the language. It makes perfect sense. It’s actually a pretty articulate statement of the various classes of knowledge. Let’s break it down: known knowns - Information that we are sure of. Things we know we know. known unknowns - Things we are sure we don’t know. Where is the next attack? Where is Osama? That sort of thing. unknown unknowns - As Rumsfeld says, these are the really vexing things. Important facts that we don’t know, and don’t even know that we NEED to know. A secret alliance, for example. A greater long-term strategy that is not evident. For example, Saddam’s apparent strategy to cache weapons around the country and wage a guerilla war. Not only did we not know where the caches were, we didn’t even know that it was something we should try to learn. An unknown unknown. As Rumsfeld said: > [@](#): > > And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. A fine statement. In fact, the confusion over all of this says more about the lack of understanding or intelligence of his critics than it does about Rumsfeld’s ability to speak clearly. If he’s guilty of anything, it’s that he sometimes talks over the heads of his audience. Easy to do when your audience is a bunch of J-school grads. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/9 "2003-12-06T21:00:42Z")
[hijack] > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Vetch \* > \*\*Alicia Silverstone : > > ‘I think that [the film] ‘Clueless’ was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it’s true lightness.’ > \*\* While the above is poorly stated as quoted, I know what Ms. Silverstone was getting at, and there is something of worth behind what she is saying. A far more lucid and eloquent essay on the topic of ‘Lightness’ (in this case for literature, but it is clearly applicable to many other art forms) is the first of Italo Calvino’s _Six Memos for Next Millennium_. Recommended reading. [/hijack] I have neither trust in nor respect for Mr. Rumsfeld. Misleading and/or duplicitous remarks are par for the course from him. Knorf ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/10 "2003-12-06T21:19:52Z")
I’ll continue **Knorf** ’s hijack by pointing out that _Clueless_ was a clever, witty, and quite faithful modern-day retelling of Jane Austen’s _Emma_. And I’ll gratuitously add that I agree with **Knorf** about there being sense behind Ms. Silverstone’s comment, the recommendation of Calvino, and Rumsfeld’s lack of trustworthiness. ---
**Author:** ![ekow2kn3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@ekow2kn3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekow2kn3)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/11 "2003-12-06T21:21:40Z")
i’m sorry, but it makes sense to me… its a perfectly logical statement…what part is hard to understand about it? ---
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/12 "2003-12-06T22:00:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **It makes perfect sense. It’s actually a pretty articulate statement of the various classes of knowledge.** Sure it makes sense. But _articulate_? Come on! Take this sentence: > [@](#): > > because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know He used variations of the word “know” five times when he really only had to use it once: “There are things that are known, things of which we’re sure.” “Known knowns” is a redundant attempt at clarification which, judging by the public’s reaction, actually does little more than obfuscate. > [@](#): > > We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. Again, variations of the word “know” appear five times. Consider this, instead: “There are known uncertains, like terrorist attacks. We’re sure they’ll happen, but we’re uncertain of the date or location.” That passage is more understandable and uses fewer words than Rumsfeld. > [@](#): > > But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. Okay, he’s getting a little better. He only used variations of “know” four times in this one. But why the need for “unknown unknowns?” It’s redundant, and since there are no “unknown knowns” (they’d be the same thing as “known unknowns”), it’s a really poor attempt at clarification. Again, it just confuses the listener or reader. Why not just say: “There are unknowns - things that just come out of left field.”? Lets put it all together. “There are things that are known, things of which we’re sure. There are known uncertains, like terrorist attacks. We’re sure they’ll happen, but we’re uncertain of the date or location. Then there are unknowns - things that just come out of left field.” From 62 words to 42, more understandable, and only three occurrences of variations of “know,” instead of fourteen. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/13 "2003-12-06T22:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > From 62 words to 42, more understandable, and only three occurrences of variations of “know,” instead of fourteen. But where’s the _poetry_ gone? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ekow2kn3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@ekow2kn3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekow2kn3)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/14 "2003-12-06T22:37:07Z")
you also have to realize that most people in the world are stupid, so when he talks he is going to have to simplify it for them to understand. Really, he is just making a difficult concept simple to understand. this reminds me of when bush said grecian and everyone laughed at him, but i was confused because…grecian is a word… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/15 "2003-12-06T22:45:58Z")
**Neutron Star:** Okay, so let’s see you do better describing this when you’re asked for an impromptu comment at a press conference, rather than sitting at a computer in the privacy of your home with the luxury of careful parsing. Rumsfeld’s statement was fine. It’s a silly thing to criticise him about. I don’t understand the hostility to Rumsfeld in the first place. He strikes me as being more honest and straightforward than most politicians. He’s perfectly willing to say he doesn’t know something, for example. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/16 "2003-12-06T23:13:47Z")
**Sam** , the original question to Rumsfeld was: > [@](#): > > Could I follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what you just said, please? In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations. He is deliberately avoiding the question. Rumsfeld’s answer isn’t an honest, aw-shucks admission that he has no idea if WMD exist or not. It’s a contemptable chunk of obfuscation. ---
**Author:** ![KenGr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@KenGr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KenGr)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/17 "2003-12-06T23:35:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 'possum stalker \* > \*\ ***Sam** , the original question to Rumsfeld was: > He is deliberately avoiding the question. Rumsfeld’s answer isn’t an honest, aw-shucks admission that he has no idea if WMD exist or not. It’s a contemptable chunk of obfuscation. \*\* My take would be that the reporters question was set-up, a “leading question” designed to put Rumsfield in a box where, if he a gave a straight answer to a very qualified question which could then be played up into a misleading news story. Like all savvy public figures, he provided the information he felt was relevant, not the set up question. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/18 "2003-12-06T23:46:08Z")
Actually, he provided no information whatsoever. The honest thing to do is say “no comment,” or rephrase the question in a more administration-friendly way and answer it (as political candidates often do to stay “on message”). The dishonest thing to do is to declare the question epistemologically invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Danno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Danno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Danno)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/19 "2003-12-07T00:00:18Z")
I have been using it as a sig ever since I saw the quote. Not because it is nonsense - in fact, for the exact opposite reason. It sounds like so much gibberish at first, but when you break it down, it makes sense, albeit in a rather convoluted way. It almost feels like poetry to me. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/20 "2003-12-07T00:10:03Z")
Count me as someone to whom it makes good sense, though he should have made it more complete by adding unknown knowns - those things we know but don’t realise. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387.md?page=2)