Recalling the incredible double-talk used to justify the U.S. war in Iraq
Writer and filmmaker Errol Morris had a piece in The New York Times the other day — the first installment of a four-part series, actually — in which he recalled a Pentagon news conference of Feb. 12, 2002.
It was five months after the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and a year before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
At one point, Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News asked this question of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (above):
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.
Rumsfeld’s response was this pile of pseudo-intellectual gibberish:
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.
Read the rest if Morris’s piece HERE.