Not to be too politically cynical, the first thing to come to mind when I saw the thread title,
"Is It Better Not to Know?" was one of Donald Rumsfeld's more celebrated responses to a question at a DoD press conference in Feb 02, shortly before the invasion of Iraq:
Quote:
Q: Could I follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what you just said, please? 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: 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
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcrip...nscriptID=2636
|
Not related to Rwanda and the serious question posed in the OP, but unforgetable nonetheless.