Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Sentinel (2011), Edition: 1, 832 pages
Description
With the same directness that defined his career in public service, Rumsfeld's memoir is filled with previously undisclosed details and insights about the Bush administration, 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also features Rumsfeld's unique and often surprising observations on eight decades of history.
Media reviews
No doubt Rumsfeld was motivated to write with Churchill’s (apocryphal) dictum in mind: “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” Churchill was such a powerful polemicist and successful statesman that he largely achieved his ambition; it would not be until decades later that
Show More
historians would unravel the self-serving spin of his magisterial, six-volume The Second World War. Donald Rumsfeld, needless to say, is no Winston Churchill. If the initial reviews are any indication, his memoir will do nothing to rescue the reputation of a man who is destined to be remembered as one of the two worst secretaries of defense ever—exceeded, arguably, only by Robert S. McNamara, whose missteps cost far more American lives. Although it scarcely seems possible, Known and Unknown may even lower Rumsfeld’s standing. Show Less
The most surprising thing about Donald Rumsfeld's memoir, Known and Unknown, is that a lot of it is boring. How could that be? Donald Rumsfeld was not boring; his life was not boring; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were and are not boring. What other contemporary public figure attained brief
Show More
sex-symbol status at the age of sixty-nine, drew mad vitriol from hippies and hawks alike, and had lawsuits filed against them on everything from habeas corpus to torture to sexual harassment in the military, even as poets, novelists, and comics riffed passionately on their words and lives? Yet Rumsfeld the memoirist is kind of boring. Show Less
This over-long memoir is essentially an advocacy document. ... Had he been running a fairground stall Rumsfeld might be forgiven for his lack of attention to detail, a mind lacking in rigour, and for the telegenic soundbites that are the stuff of theatrical plays. But for more than five years he
Show More
ran one of the largest organisations in the world, the US Department of Defence; in his hands it wrought mischief, mayhem and misery, without making the US or the world a safer or a better place, in the face of very real threats and dangers. That is his tragedy, and also ours. Show Less
The book is crisply written, blending narrative detail with personal judgment and reflection. Mr. Rumsfeld begins by giving us a fine, if compressed, account of his life before becoming George W. Bush's defense secretary in 2001. ... But the bulk of "Known and Unknown" inevitably refers to the
Show More
events that followed 9/11—that is, to the Bush administration's wars in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq. Show Less
History is determined by who gets to define it. So Rumsfeld patiently explains that the Bush administration did not practice "preemption," only "anticipatory self-defense." He provides hundreds of his own memos - archived on the Web - to back up his case. They may be exhaustive, but they are still
Show More
Rumsfeld's interpretation of the world as he saw it. By the time every Bush administration veteran finishes defining and redefining history, surely someone is going to have to come up with a brand new dictionary. Show Less
Mr. Rumsfeld’s memoir plays a fast and loose game of dodge ball with what are now “known knowns” and “known unknowns” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The tedious, self-serving volume is filled with efforts to blame others — most notably the C.I.A., the State Department and the
Show More
Coalition Provisional Authority (in particular George Tenet, Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice and L. Paul Bremer III) — for misjudgments made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the failure to contain an insurgency there that metastasized for years. It is a book that suffers from many of the same flaws that led the administration into what George Packer of The New Yorker has called “a needlessly deadly” undertaking — that is, cherry-picked data, unexamined assumptions and an unwillingness to re-examine past decisions. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member jcbrunner
Given the unmitigated disaster that was the Bush administration, it is a difficult task for those in positions of responsibility to write a memoir. Condi Rice took the Wittgenstein approach of not writing about her years in office. George W. Bush followed the Peter Pan strategy of having authored a
The most curious aspect is Rumsfeld positioning himself as a (passive) bystander ( known as the "only his horse was in the SA" defense in the case of Austrian Nazi and UN secretary general Waldheim). Time and again, in contrast to the corroborated narrative Rumsfeld says to have had only a marginal input in the decision-making such as the troop level for the Iraq invasion. He assumes that his readers won't have the knowledge to see through the deliberate misrepresentations in this memoir. Some people can be fooled again and again.Rumsfeld banks heavily on the truth about Mill's famous quip about conservatives and stupidity.
I found Rumsfeld's message of his memoir best summed up in the following phrase of his: "President Obama’s latter-day support of these decisions is evidence that on most of the big questions regarding our enemies, George W. Bush and his administration got it right." This a very dangerous message. Firstly, the Bush administration did not get it right. In a reality-based world, it got it outrageously wrong in practically all fields of government and the world will suffer from their hidden time bombs for years to come. Pelosi's and Obama's refusal to investigate these crimes and scandals as well as to prosecute the perpetrators does in no way diminish the fact that crimes were committed. Secondly, the policy of the Obama administration of continuing these failed policies not only makes them junior partners in crime, it perpetuates and normalizes illegal behavior. As the Bradley Manning case shows, a bit of torture is the new modus operandi of the Corporate States of America.
In contrast to George W. Bush, who has no compunction to lie, Donald Rumsfeld uses an indirect strategy to present a dishonest picture of his actions. Most of the time, he fails to include relevant and pertinent information. A typical example. Rumsfeld writes "In 2010, Iraq had the twelfth fastest growing economy in the world." His source for that statement is a forecast of a website called economywatch.com, in whose own table of sources the growth rate of Iraq is conspicuously missing while its blog post still stands.The CIA World Factbook, not exactly known for deviating from the Washington consensus, lists Iraq at the 44th position (The truth is that 2010 was a miserable year for most market economies. As in the quest for WMD, cherry-picking data to dress up a rotten case is still Rumsfeld's game. Perhaps Nixon's request to Rumsfeld to run CREEP was not so far off the mark.
Rumsfeld also likes to call on erroneous witnesses, rat on co-defendants ("Powell/Rice/Clinton did/believed it too") and to present false dichotomies. There are a vast number of very ugly sentences in this book, in which Rumsfeld accuses people who disagree with him to root for the terrorists. Rumsfeld displays a penchant for dictators and strongmen who share his goals and a distaste for the discussion that is normal in vibrant democracies.
Unfortunately, only a visit to Den Haag will force Donald Rumsfeld to truly examine and acknowledge the devastation his actions and inactions have caused. It is quite strange that Rumsfeld mentions, for instance, that the US suffered from a shortage of Vietnamese speakers in the Vietnam War but is somehow unable to acknowledge that the lack of Arabic speakers crippled the Iraqi occupation (made worse by the DADT folly of firing countless gay translators).
Overall, a highly biased and dishonest personal account of one of the main culprits for torture and war crimes in Bagram, Abu Grhaib, Guantanamo Bay, for the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq, for the tardiness faced with the human suffering of Katrina, as well as for the waste, crime and corruption of countless contractors. As more and more facts emerge, history will not be kind to Donald Rumsfeld.
Show More
work of fiction. Donald Rumsfeld chose the "Communist revolution can only be failed" model of the good Republican foot soldier: Mistakes were made, if one can call them mistakes - and the US Democrats would have made them too and anyone who disagrees with me wants the terrorists to win. The most curious aspect is Rumsfeld positioning himself as a (passive) bystander ( known as the "only his horse was in the SA" defense in the case of Austrian Nazi and UN secretary general Waldheim). Time and again, in contrast to the corroborated narrative Rumsfeld says to have had only a marginal input in the decision-making such as the troop level for the Iraq invasion. He assumes that his readers won't have the knowledge to see through the deliberate misrepresentations in this memoir. Some people can be fooled again and again.Rumsfeld banks heavily on the truth about Mill's famous quip about conservatives and stupidity.
I found Rumsfeld's message of his memoir best summed up in the following phrase of his: "President Obama’s latter-day support of these decisions is evidence that on most of the big questions regarding our enemies, George W. Bush and his administration got it right." This a very dangerous message. Firstly, the Bush administration did not get it right. In a reality-based world, it got it outrageously wrong in practically all fields of government and the world will suffer from their hidden time bombs for years to come. Pelosi's and Obama's refusal to investigate these crimes and scandals as well as to prosecute the perpetrators does in no way diminish the fact that crimes were committed. Secondly, the policy of the Obama administration of continuing these failed policies not only makes them junior partners in crime, it perpetuates and normalizes illegal behavior. As the Bradley Manning case shows, a bit of torture is the new modus operandi of the Corporate States of America.
In contrast to George W. Bush, who has no compunction to lie, Donald Rumsfeld uses an indirect strategy to present a dishonest picture of his actions. Most of the time, he fails to include relevant and pertinent information. A typical example. Rumsfeld writes "In 2010, Iraq had the twelfth fastest growing economy in the world." His source for that statement is a forecast of a website called economywatch.com, in whose own table of sources the growth rate of Iraq is conspicuously missing while its blog post still stands.The CIA World Factbook, not exactly known for deviating from the Washington consensus, lists Iraq at the 44th position (The truth is that 2010 was a miserable year for most market economies. As in the quest for WMD, cherry-picking data to dress up a rotten case is still Rumsfeld's game. Perhaps Nixon's request to Rumsfeld to run CREEP was not so far off the mark.
Rumsfeld also likes to call on erroneous witnesses, rat on co-defendants ("Powell/Rice/Clinton did/believed it too") and to present false dichotomies. There are a vast number of very ugly sentences in this book, in which Rumsfeld accuses people who disagree with him to root for the terrorists. Rumsfeld displays a penchant for dictators and strongmen who share his goals and a distaste for the discussion that is normal in vibrant democracies.
Unfortunately, only a visit to Den Haag will force Donald Rumsfeld to truly examine and acknowledge the devastation his actions and inactions have caused. It is quite strange that Rumsfeld mentions, for instance, that the US suffered from a shortage of Vietnamese speakers in the Vietnam War but is somehow unable to acknowledge that the lack of Arabic speakers crippled the Iraqi occupation (made worse by the DADT folly of firing countless gay translators).
Overall, a highly biased and dishonest personal account of one of the main culprits for torture and war crimes in Bagram, Abu Grhaib, Guantanamo Bay, for the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq, for the tardiness faced with the human suffering of Katrina, as well as for the waste, crime and corruption of countless contractors. As more and more facts emerge, history will not be kind to Donald Rumsfeld.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RapidCityPubLib
Few individuals have been the center of so much attention and scrutinized so thoroughly by both the media and American public. Loved in some sectors and disliked in others, Mr. Rumsfeld presents a brass and bold look at his half-century career that will present new details and disclose facts that
Show More
were previously unreleased. The book follows Rumsfeld from humble beginnings, through university life at Princeton and into his political life starting with in the Eisenhower administration and continuing on to the present day. Show Less
LibraryThing member morriss003
All memoirs are self serving to some extent, and this memoir is no different, but it is no worse than most. Rumsfeld's descriptions of his early experiences are set in black and white with little or shallow analysis. But he does portray himself as a liberal Republican in the beginning, and
Show More
certainly many conservatives agree with that portrayal. Although there is a lot to take issue with in this memoir, there are a lot of good points that are made, especially those points that relate to the structure of the government, how decisions are made, and how the lack of certain systems and organization hampers the ability of the United States to carry out military missions in a timely, and professional manner. His criticisms of President Bush and others in the administrations that he served in are muted, but they are underlying. I am reminded of Secretary of State Robert McNamara when I read Rumsfeld, and it seems as if Rumsfeld fell into the same traps. I struggled to get though this book at times, but I am still recommending it. Show Less
LibraryThing member bookmarkaussie
Donald Rumsfeld was twice, once in the 1970's and again after the millennium, the US Secretary of Defense. He also served as a member of the United States Congress in the sixties and was the United States Ambassador to NATO in the early seventies. He was also President Fords Chief of Staff in the
Liberalism and Conservatism
Mr. Rumsfeld first won office in 1962 running the United States Congress, all of his political career he has called himself a Conservative Republican. But he is quite clearly a Right-Liberal, here are the principles he put on his business card when he won the Republican party primary for his district:
"PRINCIPLES: firm foreign policy, strong defense and a freer trade policy, effective civil rights measures, reduction of the debt, incentives for increasing economic growth".
One of his opponents a Mr. Burks said that Mr. Rumsfeld wasn't hard-right Conservative. At first glance all of the principles seem Conservative, but what does "a freer trade policy" mean? What does "effective civil rights measures" mean? What does "incentives for increasing economic growth" mean? They are all Liberal principles.
Terrorism
One of the great tragedies of the Reagan administration was the suicide attack on the US Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. It killed 241 Americans and 1 Lebanese civilian. To put it into perspective it was the largest loss of life in a single day for the US Marines since the battles on Iwo Jima in 1945. On the same day 58 French soldiers and 5 Lebanese civilians, a mother and her 4 children were killed in another suicide attack. President Reagan and President Mitterrand both said that the attacks would not force them to leave Lebanon. But within a year France, Italy, Britain and the United States had withdrawn from Lebanon. The retaliation was ineffectual and the attacks joined a long list of terrorist attacks that received no or little response. It is a frustrating story to look at terrorist attacks on the West going back to the 1960's and seeing so little being done to fight back. Mr. Rumsfeld gives a very good account of his time as a Middle East Envoy and both the limits of America's power and the policy of wishful thinking that believes that pretending terrorism comes from nowhere that it will vanish back into nowhere. Each successful terrorist attack encourages more and the lack of a military response simply makes it easier. The reality is that most terrorism is state sponsored, a part of their foreign policy and when we do not response militarily we invite further attacks as we have shown it works. Mr. Rumsfeld is also very scathing of letting the law handle terrorism when it is a problem of foreign policy. He gives a very damning example of when the "Blind Sheik", responsible for the 1993 World Trade Centre Bombing was on trial, the Prosecutor was required to hand over details of how the FBI had obtained information and from who. The Defence then released that information, exposing informers and techniques alike to the terrorists.
Afghanistan
After the 2001 terrorist attacks the United States demanded that those responsible be handed over for trial. The Taliban Government of Afghanistan decided to play games and the United States and it's Allies invaded Afghanistan and installed a new Government. The war continues but for the first 5 years Mr. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and he made many of the decisions relating to the war. In theory invading a landlocked country on the other side of the world was the big problem. But the capabilities of the United States meant it was achieved. The Taliban was driven from office, a new Government created and the country stabilised. Fighting continued during all of this time but it was on a much smaller scale until 2006 when the mistakes that had been made came back to bite. Mr. Rumsfeld discusses two of the biggest problems that were made in Afghanistan. But interestingly he doesn't mention what I regard as the biggest mistake, having the King abdicate in exile and creating a republic. King Zahir was crowned in 1933, was overthrown in a military coup in 1973 and died in 2007. It was his overthrow that started the disaster that Afghanistan is today and the Afghan people know this, his return would have given a legitimacy and stability to the new Government that nothing else has. The second problem that he does discuss is the idea of trying to create a modern western state in Afghanistan, something most Afghans don't want but which many have insisted is the end goal of the war. This simply breeds support for the Taliban as foreign ideas are forced onto the country. Thirdly he talks about the lack of support from the rest of the US Government, the State Department was normally short of the number of personal promised and they tended to be younger and less experienced than required. They were keen and brave in many cases but the lack of experience really told.
Iraq
What many forgot, even at the time was that the United States had not one reason to invade Iraq but multiple reasons. Iraq had signed a number of agreements that it had either broken outright or was using to play games. It agreed to disarm any Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons or development programmes it may have. There is no evidence that that ever happened, Iraq made lots of excuses but it continued to try and get weapons and to have the ability to rebuild it's weapons capacity. It constantly attacked American and British planes in the no-fly zones, trying to shoot them down. It hampered the United Nations efforts to inspect for Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, despite having agreed to do so. It corruptly used the Oil for Food program to rearm and to obtain funds, neither of which were the purpose of the fund. While all this was going on the dictatorship continued to kill and torture, even before the invasion it was infamous for it's use of rape as a political weapon. Not to mention that Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours under Saddam Hussein. Mr. Rumsfeld mentions a number of other reasons and lists the failure of the United States Government to remind people of the many reasons it had to go to war against Iraq as one of the biggest failures of President Bush's administration, I agree. The other big problems he mentions in regards to Iraq were the troop levels and the lack of any firm idea about how long America was going to remain in Iraq. Some wanted only a few weeks, others wanted decades. This lack of clarity lead to much of the confusion between various actors, military and civilian, American and Iraqi, American and foreign and American and American as no one was quite sure how long they were expected to do something. It was a big factor in not setting goals and as no goals were set goals could not be met. The troop levels were particularly interesting, Mr. Rumsfeld said it was a constant question he asked, was there enough troops in Iraq. Most of the time the commanders were very consistent and said no, that there were enough US troops in Iraq. Whats clear is that wasn't true and it's strange that the commanders should be so convinced that there were. One reason was that more US troops on the ground could mean more US casualties. It would also have meant more control over areas, but the real problem was that there was no clear goal on raising, training or deploying Iraqi military or police units. It also took a long time to understand the unique conditions of Iraq, it's people and political culture.
The United States Federal Government
A surprise for me was reading the institutional shortcomings of the United States Government. I was surprised that each President seems to decide how they want the White House staff organised. I would have thought there was more structure. I have also noticed before and this book confirms it that the lack of a proper cabinet Government in the united States is a bad idea. The United States seems to have taken half of the idea of a cabinet but it is really a very decentralised system. So instead of the different departments working together because the cabinet makes them it seems these issues continue much longer than they need to. Setting goals in Iraq should have been someones job, but no one except the President can do that, maybe the fault in this case does lie with President Bush. The faults of the National Security Advisor is also clear, whoever has the job seems to be in conflict with both the Secretary of State and of Defense, because they are not advising so much as deciding US policy.
As a book this was easy to read if your interested in the subject matter, if your not don't bother. The writing is good and there is much information on Donald Rumsfeld's life and political career. If your at all interested in his life and career I do recommend you read his memoir.
Show More
White House and a Special Envoy to the Middle East for President Reagan. His memoir is of great interest if your interested in the Government of the United States from the 1960's to 2006. Of interest to me was his involvement as Secretary of Defense during two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as his views on terrorism. It also highlighted the difference between Conservatives and Right-Liberals.Liberalism and Conservatism
Mr. Rumsfeld first won office in 1962 running the United States Congress, all of his political career he has called himself a Conservative Republican. But he is quite clearly a Right-Liberal, here are the principles he put on his business card when he won the Republican party primary for his district:
"PRINCIPLES: firm foreign policy, strong defense and a freer trade policy, effective civil rights measures, reduction of the debt, incentives for increasing economic growth".
One of his opponents a Mr. Burks said that Mr. Rumsfeld wasn't hard-right Conservative. At first glance all of the principles seem Conservative, but what does "a freer trade policy" mean? What does "effective civil rights measures" mean? What does "incentives for increasing economic growth" mean? They are all Liberal principles.
Terrorism
One of the great tragedies of the Reagan administration was the suicide attack on the US Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. It killed 241 Americans and 1 Lebanese civilian. To put it into perspective it was the largest loss of life in a single day for the US Marines since the battles on Iwo Jima in 1945. On the same day 58 French soldiers and 5 Lebanese civilians, a mother and her 4 children were killed in another suicide attack. President Reagan and President Mitterrand both said that the attacks would not force them to leave Lebanon. But within a year France, Italy, Britain and the United States had withdrawn from Lebanon. The retaliation was ineffectual and the attacks joined a long list of terrorist attacks that received no or little response. It is a frustrating story to look at terrorist attacks on the West going back to the 1960's and seeing so little being done to fight back. Mr. Rumsfeld gives a very good account of his time as a Middle East Envoy and both the limits of America's power and the policy of wishful thinking that believes that pretending terrorism comes from nowhere that it will vanish back into nowhere. Each successful terrorist attack encourages more and the lack of a military response simply makes it easier. The reality is that most terrorism is state sponsored, a part of their foreign policy and when we do not response militarily we invite further attacks as we have shown it works. Mr. Rumsfeld is also very scathing of letting the law handle terrorism when it is a problem of foreign policy. He gives a very damning example of when the "Blind Sheik", responsible for the 1993 World Trade Centre Bombing was on trial, the Prosecutor was required to hand over details of how the FBI had obtained information and from who. The Defence then released that information, exposing informers and techniques alike to the terrorists.
Afghanistan
After the 2001 terrorist attacks the United States demanded that those responsible be handed over for trial. The Taliban Government of Afghanistan decided to play games and the United States and it's Allies invaded Afghanistan and installed a new Government. The war continues but for the first 5 years Mr. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and he made many of the decisions relating to the war. In theory invading a landlocked country on the other side of the world was the big problem. But the capabilities of the United States meant it was achieved. The Taliban was driven from office, a new Government created and the country stabilised. Fighting continued during all of this time but it was on a much smaller scale until 2006 when the mistakes that had been made came back to bite. Mr. Rumsfeld discusses two of the biggest problems that were made in Afghanistan. But interestingly he doesn't mention what I regard as the biggest mistake, having the King abdicate in exile and creating a republic. King Zahir was crowned in 1933, was overthrown in a military coup in 1973 and died in 2007. It was his overthrow that started the disaster that Afghanistan is today and the Afghan people know this, his return would have given a legitimacy and stability to the new Government that nothing else has. The second problem that he does discuss is the idea of trying to create a modern western state in Afghanistan, something most Afghans don't want but which many have insisted is the end goal of the war. This simply breeds support for the Taliban as foreign ideas are forced onto the country. Thirdly he talks about the lack of support from the rest of the US Government, the State Department was normally short of the number of personal promised and they tended to be younger and less experienced than required. They were keen and brave in many cases but the lack of experience really told.
Iraq
What many forgot, even at the time was that the United States had not one reason to invade Iraq but multiple reasons. Iraq had signed a number of agreements that it had either broken outright or was using to play games. It agreed to disarm any Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons or development programmes it may have. There is no evidence that that ever happened, Iraq made lots of excuses but it continued to try and get weapons and to have the ability to rebuild it's weapons capacity. It constantly attacked American and British planes in the no-fly zones, trying to shoot them down. It hampered the United Nations efforts to inspect for Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, despite having agreed to do so. It corruptly used the Oil for Food program to rearm and to obtain funds, neither of which were the purpose of the fund. While all this was going on the dictatorship continued to kill and torture, even before the invasion it was infamous for it's use of rape as a political weapon. Not to mention that Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours under Saddam Hussein. Mr. Rumsfeld mentions a number of other reasons and lists the failure of the United States Government to remind people of the many reasons it had to go to war against Iraq as one of the biggest failures of President Bush's administration, I agree. The other big problems he mentions in regards to Iraq were the troop levels and the lack of any firm idea about how long America was going to remain in Iraq. Some wanted only a few weeks, others wanted decades. This lack of clarity lead to much of the confusion between various actors, military and civilian, American and Iraqi, American and foreign and American and American as no one was quite sure how long they were expected to do something. It was a big factor in not setting goals and as no goals were set goals could not be met. The troop levels were particularly interesting, Mr. Rumsfeld said it was a constant question he asked, was there enough troops in Iraq. Most of the time the commanders were very consistent and said no, that there were enough US troops in Iraq. Whats clear is that wasn't true and it's strange that the commanders should be so convinced that there were. One reason was that more US troops on the ground could mean more US casualties. It would also have meant more control over areas, but the real problem was that there was no clear goal on raising, training or deploying Iraqi military or police units. It also took a long time to understand the unique conditions of Iraq, it's people and political culture.
The United States Federal Government
A surprise for me was reading the institutional shortcomings of the United States Government. I was surprised that each President seems to decide how they want the White House staff organised. I would have thought there was more structure. I have also noticed before and this book confirms it that the lack of a proper cabinet Government in the united States is a bad idea. The United States seems to have taken half of the idea of a cabinet but it is really a very decentralised system. So instead of the different departments working together because the cabinet makes them it seems these issues continue much longer than they need to. Setting goals in Iraq should have been someones job, but no one except the President can do that, maybe the fault in this case does lie with President Bush. The faults of the National Security Advisor is also clear, whoever has the job seems to be in conflict with both the Secretary of State and of Defense, because they are not advising so much as deciding US policy.
As a book this was easy to read if your interested in the subject matter, if your not don't bother. The writing is good and there is much information on Donald Rumsfeld's life and political career. If your at all interested in his life and career I do recommend you read his memoir.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AZBob1951
This book is way, way too long and too detailed. Getting close to finishing it off after weeks and weeks. I keep paging towards the final pages to see how much longer I have to read before I am finally done. I'm waiting for Rumsfeld to start listing out the contents of his master bathroom's cabinet
Good book. Lets us groundlings see how politics isn't a perfect science, especially when everyone doesn't see eye to eye. Also reveals some commonly accepted 'Major Media' (DeMedia) 'facts' that are just plain not true.
What Rumsfeld wrote aligns with what G.W. Bush wrote in his book, 'Decision Points.' If I had to chose which book to leave unread, I'd chose 'Known and Unknown.'
Show More
and how he decided on each item...Good book. Lets us groundlings see how politics isn't a perfect science, especially when everyone doesn't see eye to eye. Also reveals some commonly accepted 'Major Media' (DeMedia) 'facts' that are just plain not true.
What Rumsfeld wrote aligns with what G.W. Bush wrote in his book, 'Decision Points.' If I had to chose which book to leave unread, I'd chose 'Known and Unknown.'
Show Less
Original language
English
Physical description
832 p.; 9.5 inches
ISBN
159523067X / 9781595230676