
The one that puzzled me was all the piss taking Rumsfeld got for his "know unknowns" speech. I thought it was an excellent way to explain the basics of intelligence gathering to a room full of idiots who were bleating "how could you let this happen? Why didn't you know?" He did actually miss one out though, "unknown knowns", where you have information but fail to realise its relevance or pertinence.
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 15:28, Reply)

on the back of a military that 'defends' it's country with a military budget which is more than virtually everyone else on the planets combined
and yet failed to detect the rise of a bunch of psychotic Wahhabi hard-right fascists on it's radar, born in a country which was supposedly one of it's allies
or something
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 15:52, Reply)

Two of the 911 hijackers were well know to be senior Al Qaeda operatives by the CIA, but inexplicably they were allowed to enter the states, and the FBI was not alerted to their presence. Although they were 'known', what they were up to wasn't, and they weren't being watched. Unknown knowns.
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 16:05, Reply)

It might sound a bit clumsy at first, but it really is the simplest way of explaining the concept of information which you do and don't have. It's a shame that Rumsfeld got mocked as though he was the stupid one, when he was attempting to dumb it down for those very people who mocked him.
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 16:11, Reply)

But it ain't necessarily so. But this is a bit stupid, but it doesn't make it wrong: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 16:16, Reply)

Buffalo buffalo buffalo ... etc.
(I'm not typing it all out on my phone).
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 16:35, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating_Poet_in_the_Stone_Den
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 16:47, Reply)

It's just a terrible, inadequate, slimy answer to the question he was given.
Rumsfeld had just said that intelligence showed that Iraq had actively worked on getting chemical weapons out to terrorists. That was support for why the US was actively planning to get involved in Iraq.
If someone then says "Does that evidence actually exist? What is it?"
It is not a good answer to say "There may be evidence out there that we don't know exists yet," when you're getting ready to invade a country.
( , Wed 10 Dec 2014, 17:35, Reply)