Errol Morris on Donald Rumsfeld, The Unknown Known, and Evidence-Based Journalism
"We're all morons" says the Oscar-winning filmmaker. And that's just the beginning of our problems.
Donald Rumsfeld's "war crime," says Oscar-winning filmmaker Errol Morris, is "the gobbledygook, the blizzard of words, the misdirections, the evasions…and ultimately at the heart of it all…the disregard and devaluation of evidence."
The former secretary of defense's complicated relationship with the truth is the subject of Morris' new documentary, The Unknown Known, which opens in theaters nationwide on Friday, April 4. The Unknown Known is an extended conversation with Rumsfeld, tracing his long career through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations, and focusing on his role in leading U.S. military forces into Iraq to fight a

bloody and senseless war.
In the film, Morris engages in a verbal sparring session with Rumsfeld in an effort to break through the linguistic "evasions" and "gobbledygook" for which he's known.
The title of the film comes from Rumsfeld's response to a question by NBC reporter Jim Miklaszewski at a Pentagon news conference on February 12, 2002. When Miklaszewski asked Rumsfeld if there was any evidence that Iraq was supplying terrorists with weapons, Rumsfeld replied:
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.
In a four-part series in The New York Times titled "The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld," Morris wrote: "Many people believe Rumsfeld's reply was brilliant. I think otherwise."
The Unknown Known is Errol Morris' 10th documentary feature. He's also the author of two best-selling books and the director of over 1,000 TV commercials. Much of Morris' work explores, as he puts it, "how people prefer untruth to truth" and how they're "blinded by their own spurious convictions."
Reason TV's Nick Gillespie sat down for an extended chat with Morris about The Unknown Known. They discussed, among other things, the difference between Rumsfeld and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, whose complicated relationship with his own mistakes is the subject of Morris' Oscar-winning film, The Fog of War; Morris' take on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case, which was the subject of his book, A Wilderness of Error; how Obama compares to Bush; his friendships with Roger Ebert and Werner Herzog; and why "we're all morons."
Gillespie conducted the interview using an "interrotron," a device Morris invented, which projects an interviewer's face over the camera lens. It creates the impression that the subject is looking directly into the eyes of the viewer.
About 41 minutes.
Shot and edited by Jim Epstein.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Errol Morris also created a series of Miller High Life commercials that are all pretty good...this is one of my favorites.
Many thanks for pointing this out. As I watched your favorite, I quickly found mine.
I was pretty awesome in April. Your link is much better, though.
Loved that! I had finished the video and moved on to other things when the line in the middle hit me,
"When J. Edgar builds a dam, it stays built"
This is one evil and scary person. Those who know Rummy also know he is a paranoid brute capable of harmful retribution on anyone he dislikes.
Sounds perfect for the DC political machine.
"Bloody and senseless?"
Yet, backed up with UN resolutions, several US laws and built up over a decade in the maknig. Let's not sit here and claim it was all Rumsfeld's idea, cooked up on one day in September 2011.
I might have to see this movie. This was an interesting interview with Gillespie.
Listening to Morris, Rumsfeld comes off as the Ultimate Corporate Yes Man. A manager who sells his plans and schemes while the destruction unfolds before him, then never admits to or owns up to any flaw in his plan. If any flaw is admitted to, it's other people's failure to see his vision.
I saw Fog of War when it came out in the theater. The timing of that film was important for a couple of reasons.
For one, it was from a time in McNamara's life when he was feeling pretty confessional. There were a few decades of separation from the events in question, and it gave McNamara himself some perspective.
From memory, McNamara suggested himself, in that movie, that he might have been tried for warcrimes for his part in the firebombing of Tokyo. He's extremely candid about his mistakes in Vietnam. When Rumsfeld has gained the perspective of a few decades behind him, and he's knocking on Death's door, it'll be interesting to hear what he says then.
The second reason Fog of War was interesting was because it was released just as the occupation of Iraq was happening. You couldn't watch McNamara in Fog of War and not think about Rumsfeld. They both fell into some of the same traps for some of the same reasons. ...and they rationalized it in some of the same ways.
It's interesting that Rumsfeld must have recognized that in Fog of War himself. Or, given Rumsfeld's ego, he may have just wanted to repudiate whatever McNamara seemed to project. Because those two really do seem to be like mirror images of each other--and I guess Rumsfeld didn't like what he saw in the mirror.
I saw the rummy one just now, and there is almost no comparison between Fog of War and the 'unknown knowns'
In FoW, McNamara wants to tell his story.
In UkK, Morris wants to tell *his* story and get Rummy to deny it so that he looks like a 'liar'. Which is basically how it plays out.
Fog of War was an exquisite piece in how morris edited himself out, to where you hardly heard him 'ask questions', but hear Macnamara address issues one at a time.
In this movie, Morris actually asks what I'd consider 'dishonest questions' from the POV of a documentarian; in that he already knows the answers but wants to frame them in such a way that puts his subject in a bad light. Rummy is aware of this and consequently the entire thing comes off adversarial.
A case in point = he asks 'why, if the goal was to 'end the regime', did you not just assassinate Saddam'; Why did they need to invade'?
Rummy takes issue with "they". "We invaded". Then he says (legalistically) = "The US does not assassinate heads of state"*. Morris gets his 'gotcha' = "Then what was the Dora Farms bombing?" - Rummy = (sighs) "That was an act of War".
Morris knows that the US has a standing law against 'assassination' since the Church commission. Officially, we targeted 'the command center' Saddam was in.
Morris knew that Rummy would be forced to make this weak caveat distinction. It didn't enlighten anyone about anything, and was just a bit of rhetorical sparring. Wash, rinse, repeat.
FWIW - disclosure =
I generally like Errol morris films, i generally disliked rumsfeld, and i opposed the iraq war.... but not for 'nontervenshun' reasons or 'brown people' or 'pre-emption is illegal' lines, but rather I thought it was probably non-essential to the WoT and was going to waste a lot of time and resources and divert US focus.
For the FdA argument below = no, Iraq was not really a 'pre-emptive' war. It was (in the minds of the Pentagon and PNAC types) a unfinished war that started in 1991. We still had planes enforcing a no-fly zone, and Iraq remained hostile and a regional threat. Iraq was invaded because it had been part of a strategic vision of people in the bush admin for over a decade. Debating the 'superficial excuses' for the invasion of iraq is pointless.
21:00: Disappointing. It's all Bush's fault, and Bush did so much damage, poor Obama just can't unwind it all.
Agreed. I lost interest in anything Morris had to say after that. I'd assumed from his work on "Mr. Death" (one of the best docs I'd ever seen) that he'd have more insight into the human condition than "but BOOOOOOSH!"
On the other hand, the Shriek ought to love this one ...
I owe you 40 minutes of my life. Use it wisely.
i was out getting my ass kicked by cops and getting pepper sprayed at antiwar rallies while nick gillespie was having debates on how the Iraq War might be justifiable and Reason was promoting this heap of bullshit (libertarianism-in-one-state). one of the things i lamented at that time was that it was evident to me that rumsfeld, cheney and bush would never have the intellect or the capability for refection necessary to objectively evaluate just how senseless the war they launched was. it appears as if this is true from this video. he's a first rate war criminal, but hey at least he isn't obama so that makes half a million or so deaths ok, right?
i see the commentariat is engaged in its well worn Booosch jokes. yes, we as libertarians should excuse the actions of the men responsible for starting the war, but condemn those that ended it. i wonder why "libertarians" would do such a thing.
Who ended it? Surely you aren't talking about Obama, the man who actually tried to extend the troop presence in Iraq past the deadline set by the Bush Administration.
No one here is pro-Bush, idiot. It's just that blaming George Bush for the continued and obvious incompetence of Barack Obama is like blaming Karl Marx because people like you are dumb enough to buy his bullshit.
There is still a war going on. Why aren't you still protesting? Surely, you continued past 2008 with your protestations? Cause otherwise you be a fucking idiotic hypocrite.
If most of us had our way, Bush, Cheney, and all his buddies would be hung.
Problem is, he is not president anymore, and that is not going to happen.
So we move on. You're living in the past because you can't handle the present situation of Obama being just as bad, and in many cases worse than his predecessor.
Your problem is that you are invested in Obama, but are unable to see the truth about him, or like the truth about him because you are a progressive and he is on your team.
"We as libertarians should excuse the actions of the men responsible for starting the war, but condemn those that ended it. i wonder why "libertarians" would do such a thing."
Good job!
Although I think this guy did it better:
http://fridayafterwork.fm/wp-c.....aw-man.jpg
Pst.. You guys are talking to ghosts.
The concern troll made a straw man and then turned into a ghost?
american socialist|4.3.14 @ 8:31PM|#
Woe dude!
I just got goosebumps.
Funny - all the people world wide that backed the invasion of Iraq because of evidence of WMDs repudiate their decision when new evidence emerges.
But you make decisions based on the best available evidence "at the time".
And note: Iraq did have a nuke program. Outsourced to Libya. You can look it up.
You were here when we were debating this stuff back then, weren't you MSimon?
There were good reasons to oppose the invasion in 2003. All the same reasons Bush Sr., Scowcroft, Jim Baker, et. al. didn't invade to depose Saddam Hussein in 1991 were just as valid in 2003.
Including: 1) the Weinberger/Powell Doctrines and 2) the opportunities removing Saddam Hussein from power would present to Iran--a real state sponsor of terror with a real nuclear program.
I still think the biggest factor in getting the American people to support invading Iraq was the anthrax attack. People thought anthrax was being mailed to their homes and that only Saddam Hussein had the resources to weaponize it like that.
Six months after we invaded Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com.....iraq_x.htm
But rational people didn't have to ignore what the intelligence services were telling us in order to oppose the invasion of Iraq. You just had to know and understand the Weingberger/Powell doctrines or listen to people who understood it--like Brent Scowcroft.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.....croft.html
Incidentally, if what we're looking to do on the ground in Iraq against ISIS is a bad idea, it's a bad idea for some of the same reasons invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was a bad idea, too.
What sort of idiot is unable to parse and understand Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" statement. Admit it, you understand it but the cool kids won't let you sit at their lunchroom table unless you profess not to.
This. Rumsfeld was rotten, and I'm hesitant to give him too much intellectual credit, but that statement was far more intelligent and meaningful than the vast majority of "gobbledygook" that politicians spew.
"But there are also unknown unknowns ? the ones we don't know we don't know."
You've got to be fairly bright to understand that type of phrase. And then you've got to be non-ideological enough to accept the fact that someone you don't like is pretty smart. So it's an easy cheap shot to call this type of phrase "gobbledygook" and at least the author Edward Morris is somewhat willing to recognize these points.
"Morris wrote: "Many people believe Rumsfeld's reply was brilliant. I think otherwise.""
While true, going to war over unknown unknowns is complete bullshit.
He was justifying killing people based upon shit they might do at some time in the future. Shit they might not do at all. Once people accept that, you can justify absolutely anything...
e.g. We need to bomb Iran because they might be working on a nuclear weapon and if that's the case, they might use it someday.
And the sad state of affairs is, there are a shitload of people who would agree with that now. Otherwise reasonable people who comment here everyday. What passes for casus belli, since 9/11, has reduced to insignificance.
You can wrap your response up in a catchy phrase and idiots will nod their heads in agreement as they are too stupid to follow the actual argument.
What he actually said was, "We need to kill brown people based on something that could possibly (not probably) happen in the future."
Think the media woulda let that one slip by?
Jesus Christ you're an idiot. Think progress is probably the place for you since you're confused by his statement and desperately want to play the race card.
I rest my case.
Oh, really, Mr Taylor? Which part do you refute? Do you refute the fact the Iraq was a preemptive war?
Or do you refute the fact that there are those on the right that would have us do it all again in Iran?
I think you are the one who is confused. What he said was he wanted to go to war because he was afraid of the shit he hadn't considered yet. Good excuse to kill people, dontcha think Mark?
While true, going to war over unknown unknowns is complete bullshit.
Agreed. I'm not excusing Rumsfeld. Just pointing out that Morris is focusing on a statement that he probably doesn't even understand, but should.
unk/unk's will eat your lunch. Rumy's words were pretty much spot on for complicated situations.
Morris basically ignores the whole point of the Unknown Known. Maybe he addresses it in the movie, but the idea is you can't prove a negative. So if the outcome is so heinous--like a nuclear war or mass deaths--then even believing that the chances are slim may be enough justification for doing something. The question is whether that something is a war or parking an aircraft carrier outside of their shores.
Right, but if Rumsfeld had said "the precautionary principle" or "there is a consensus," then Morris would have hugged him, I'm sure.
you know who would be a good choice for president? an old bint who claims she was duped by this guy and duped by every other guy in her life and is therefore the smartest woman in America.
my best friend's mother-in-law makes $62 /hour on the computer . She has been out of work for seven months but last month her paycheck was $14213 just working on the computer for a few hours.visit this site...
????? http://www.netjob70.com
Congratulations. Kill yourself.
Mandatory Youtube link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLZqymJRZI
I saw the check 4 $8776 , I did not believe that my brother was like actualie bringing in money part-time on their apple labtop. . there brothers friend haz done this 4 only seven months and just cleared the dept on there place and got a brand new McLaren F1 .
You can find out more ?????????? http://www.jobsfish.com
Beware the Saturday threads!
..."which opens in theaters nationwide on Friday, April 4."...
I love reposted threads. I've actually seen people accuse themselves of stealing their handle.
I think the interns are responsible for posting the weekend threads. Seems we need to reteach them to cut the old comments out with every new batch.
"I've actually seen people accuse themselves of stealing their handle."
And making the same argument they would have!
(unless you're one of our lefty hypocrites and find that you were promoting O-care, since it wasn't going to affect the debt!)
"I've actually seen people accuse themselves of stealing their handle"
lol
Its like hearing your own voice recorded = "Who is that whiny sounding idiot??"
He tricked us with his tricky talk!
All this 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns' crap obscures what every business person and scientist needs to learn and remember -- it ain't what you don't know that hurst you, it's what you know that just ain't so.
And so it has been with all the monsters since Nixon and Kissinger. (What is it with the Republican Party and war criminals, anyway?) Or Wilson and his SecDef. Or Lincoln. Or past ruler of your choice.
I watched this documentary several months ago. It wasn't one of Morris's best--he was clearly trying to do a hit piece, but Rumsfeld handed him his ass on a platter. The irony is that Rumsfeld is doesn't speak in "gobbledygook" which can then be twisted to mean whatever people like Morris want it to mean.
(In other words, the curse of being blunt is that there is no reading between the lines; there are no secondary, deeper meanings. There is no "what he really meant". What you see is what you get. This drives many people crazy.)
I'm curious what Morris' take on Jeffrey MacDonald is. I suppose a case could be made that he was wrongfully convicted on procedural grounds but you'd be crazy to think he didn't brutally murder his wife and children.
Not curious enough to buy the book.
"Acid is groovy, kill the pigs"
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start... This is where to start...
?????? http://www.payinsider.com
One thing that's striking about the transcript is how aggressively the press corps pushes Rummy on whether civilians are being killed by US missile strikes. Simpler times.
http://www.defense.gov/transcr.....iptid=2636
Rumsfeld and Fleischer (sp?) both did like to show off how much smarter they were than most members of the press corps, but in this case, the reporters obviously understood him.
You could agree or disagree, but Rumsfeld's case in that conference (defending Colin Powell's call for Iraq regime change) was (1) we know Saddam is a bad guy; (2) pretty much everybody thinks he is cheating on the UN inspections and plans to develop his WMD capacity; (3) in light of 9/11, we're more concerned about Black Swan terrorist events than we were this time last yearn and (4) the more rogue states have WMD, the more chance that terrorists get WMD.
Now Morris disagree - he thinks we should have know in Febuary 2002 that Saddam didn't have any WMD with the exception of the several tons he wasn't able to get rid of because he just had so darn many, and we should have known that he was several years away from getting them once sanctions let up, and that in any event, we should have chosen not to go to war, but noone heard "unknown unknowns" and decided that it was a good idea to go to war.