Foot in Mouth Award : 2003 : Rumsfeld

aquafireaquafire
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Donald Rumsfeld has just won the " Foot and Mouth Award" for 2003 given by "Plain English " campaigners.



He is being awarded for his efforts to explain away terrorism in Iraq .





" As we know , there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns ...etc.



Arnie got 3rd place with his comments about gay marriage being :



"a private matter between a man & woman "



Sorry news link didn't work so I deleted it...
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I hate to say it, but I saw that quote when he said, and I read that quote now, and at no time was I confused by what he was saying. Maybe it's a stats/probability background, but it makes perfect sense. Probably could have been worded a bit more clearly, but for an off-the-cuff explanation, it seemed fine to me.



    Ahnold's comment was just silly.
  • Reply 2 of 56
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Why on Earth would you effectively paraphrase Rumsfeld's comment, Aquafire? Here's the full context:



    Verbatim (CNN):



    Quote:

    Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld told a news briefing.





    "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."





    John Lister, spokesman for the campaign, which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."



    Accuracy be damned.
  • Reply 3 of 56
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Either way, it's a great example of gibberish this administration willingly feeds its constituency, despite the matter at hand being of grave importance. At least Clinton's lies were semi-convincing / entertaining. Stuff like this is just an insult to my intelligence. Does he think the entire nation has a WWF feed in their house and 5th grade literacy levels?



    He's become a jerk off, plain and simple.
  • Reply 4 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    ???



    I still don't see what the problem with that statement is... do you really *not* understand what he's saying?



    It's a simple propositional logic construct.
  • Reply 5 of 56
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    ???



    I still don't see what the problem with that statement is... do you really *not* understand what he's saying?



    It's a simple propositional logic construct.



    Of course it makes a kind of logical sense. It just sounds stupid.
  • Reply 6 of 56
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    I know what he's saying, but I don't know why he's saying it.



    Admittedly I have no idea what the bigger context was but I'd guess he was havering in order to avoid answering a question.
  • Reply 7 of 56
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    ???



    I still don't see what the problem with that statement is... do you really *not* understand what he's saying?



    It's a simple propositional logic construct.



    I have no doubts about the construct and logic of what was said. The honesty behind the empty statements is what evades us. For that response to be a meaningful bit of info for the press is a joke.



    Fellows
  • Reply 8 of 56
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Well, I can't see the problem either. It makes perfect sense unless you're a freaking retard.
  • Reply 9 of 56
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    It's laughable because he's saying "WE DON'T KNOW"

    But we'll find out what it is we don't know... eventually.



    Like maybe... "ummm... we didn't know they didn't have huge stockpiles of WMDs"



    after months before the war he was saying... "WE KNOW!"
  • Reply 10 of 56
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i think the best audible gaff was dubya's "fool me once..." gibberish. comedy gold. i can't even think of the exact verbiage without laughing myself into a stinkhole.
  • Reply 11 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Of course it makes a kind of logical sense. It just sounds stupid.



    *laugh* Okay, you come up with a cleaner way of saying that off the top of your head.



    Face it, propositional logic isn't something most people are going to get, regardless of how you phrase it. :P



    World fulla idjits.
  • Reply 12 of 56
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thuh Freak

    i think the best audible gaff was dubya's "fool me once..." gibberish. comedy gold. i can't even think of the exact verbiage without laughing myself into a stinkhole.





    (((((( LOOK BELOW )))))))



    CLICK ME FOR A LAUGH!!!!!



    (((((( LOOK ABOVE ))))))





    That is indeed gold



    Fellows
  • Reply 13 of 56
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Ohhh man... I hope he was making fun of himself! wow.



    http://www.dubyaspeak.com/freshdubya.shtml



    Has anyone been watching Letterman lately?



    He's got the best clips! The Bush lip curl... the Bush joke that's not a joke... the Bush Sniff... the Bush Moment of Confusion.
  • Reply 14 of 56
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    I have to say that I'm a little unclear about the distinction between known unknowns and unknown unknowns.



    (When you type that, the spelling of the word 'known' starts to seem completely rediculous.)
  • Reply 15 of 56
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    ???



    I still don't see what the problem with that statement is... do you really *not* understand what he's saying?



    It's a simple propositional logic construct.







    I don't see any propositional logic - what are the premises, what are the conclusions? Where are the deductions?
  • Reply 16 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    I have to say that I'm a little unclear about the distinction between known unknowns and unknown unknowns.



    (When you type that, the spelling of the word 'known' starts to seem completely rediculous.)



    Known unknown:



    "We don't know precisely what the age of the universe is, but we know that we can add more astronomical knowledge to come to better calculations."



    Unknown unknown, c. 1500:



    They didn't even know the universe *had* a measurable age, outside of what the Bible said.





    An unknown unknown is a bit of information you don't even realize you're lacking - it's outside of your current framework completely.



    A known unknown is a hole in your information that you can see, and identify, and work towards filling.





    It's the unknown unknowns that bite you in the ass, because they come out of left field without warning.



    Known unknowns you can at least work towards knowing, and preparing for.







    How about we start calling it 'identified lack of information' and 'unidentified lack of information'?
  • Reply 17 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell





    I don't see any propositional logic - what are the premises, what are the conclusions? Where are the deductions?



    Well, it's rather a truth table as a conjuction of "Is it identified?" and "Is it understood?"



    Identified and understood: known known

    Identified and not understood: known unknown

    Unidentified and understood: ummm.... call this a conflict

    Unidentified and not understood: unknown unknown
  • Reply 18 of 56
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    blaw blaw blaw



    Kickaha and BRussell are starting to remind me of ShawnJ and Trumptman going in circles over non-issues.



    To see who can out-last the other and be "RIGHT"



    Just my 2 cents



    I know,, you did not ask for my 2 cents



    Fellows
  • Reply 19 of 56
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Sounds like Rumsfelds... known unknowns have become unknown unknowns to me. And his Known Knowns have become known unknowns.





    In a sense... they thought they knew... but have come to realize... they didn't know at all.



    Reminds me if Schultz. from Hogan's Heroes...

    "I knowwww naaathing!"
  • Reply 20 of 56
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Well, it's rather a truth table as a conjuction of "Is it identified?" and "Is it understood?"



    Identified and understood: known known

    Identified and not understood: known unknown

    Unidentified and understood: ummm.... call this a conflict

    Unidentified and not understood: unknown unknown



    I don't think that really qualifies as a truth table either, but anyway...



    I think the point is that it was probably utterly unresponsive to whatever the specific question was. What was the question to which he was responding?
Sign In or Register to comment.