# Rumsfeld's "Unknown unknowns" remark

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387>\
**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:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\
**Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/21 "2003-12-07T00:10:31Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know

.

Doesn’t make sense; he should have said **there may be** unknown unknowns - saying that **there are** unknown unknowns contradicts the rest of the statement by declaring them ‘known’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/22 "2003-12-07T00:29:27Z")

</div>

The observation actually makes sense. Rumsfeld’s problem is ignoring the unknown unknowns entirely and assuming the known unknowns would all turn out exactly the way he told himself they would.

[The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld](http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/) includes many more such gems, with appropriate line breaks. This is a good runner-up:

> [@](#):
>
> **Clarity**  
> I think what you’ll find,  
> I think what you’ll find is,  
> Whatever it is we do substantively,  
> There will be near-perfect clarity  
> As to what it is.
> 
> And it will be known,  
> And it will be known to the Congress,  
> And it will be known to you,  
> Probably before we decide it,  
> But it will be known.
> 
> —Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\
**Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387/23 "2003-12-07T00:45:05Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Mangetout \*  
> \*\*Doesn’t make sense; he should have said **there may be** unknown unknowns - saying that **there are** unknown unknowns contradicts the rest of the statement by declaring them ‘known’. \*\*

No, that just makes them _known_ unknown unknowns. If he’d said “may be”, they’d be _unknown_ unknown unknowns. As we know that they are things that we don’t know we don’t know, Rumsfeld’s statement is correct.

More seriously, I’m not quite sure why they’re picking on this particular statement. Rumsfeld has made a various of ridiculous and garbled statements over the past year (don’t ask me for a direct quote, but the BBC used to broadcast the “Donald Rumsfeld Soundbite of the Week” for comic effect), but this one is relatively clear once you untangle the wordage.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-unknown-unknowns-remark/217387.md?page=1)