Sunday Discussion Group

June 19, 2005

Nearly six years ago, George W. Bush launched a campaign for the presidency with one of the shortest political resumes of any candidate in generations. He was the governor of a state with a weak chief executive (few official powers and responsibilities) for only five years before throwing his hat into the ring, and even that fails to account for the fact that the Texas legislature only meets every other year. Bush, in other words, decided he was ready to be the leader of the free world after what was essentially three years in government service.

Never fear, voters were told, Bush would be surrounded with excellent and experienced advisors. And while I highlight the various shortcomings of the president frequently here at The Carpetbagger Report, it’s also worth noting that Bush has surrounded himself with some advisors whose failings rival those of their boss.

This week’s topic: Who is the worst member of the Bush cabinet?

For the purpose of this exercise, I’m including everyone who’s served, including in Bush’s first term. Is Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon worse than John Ashcroft’s Justice Department? Is Alberto Gonzales’ tacit support for torture worse than Condoleezza Rice’s numerous foreign policy failures? Is John Snow’s stewardship of the Treasury as embarrassing as Rod Paige’s humiliation at the Department of Education or Tom Ridge at Homeland Security?

No contest. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld. The war, the torture, the arrogance, the denials, the lack of responsibility.

The worst of Bush’s cabinet and one of the worst of any cabinet.

  • I dunno, Ashcroft was incredibly lousy. I mean, he was a candidate for worst cabinet member of any administration.

  • Officially, Cheney isn’t part of the “cabinet”, otherwise, yes, he would win hands down.
    Beyond that, however, the clear-cut winner is Rumsfield. Mostly, as mentioned earlier, because of arrogance, and failure to accept any responsibility!!

  • If Cheney counts, he gets my vote.

    If he doesn’t, I’m tempted to go with Condi Rice. She not only helped screw up Iraq, but before 9-11, she ignored the terrorist threat completely.

  • Great question. It would be a lot easier to try and figure out who hasn’t been completely incompetent. Powell and O’Neill come to mind; of course, they’re both gone.

    Cheney wins the “meta” award, creating the climate of unreality, reflexive belligerence and self-dealing that so many of the Cabinet officers have wallowed in, from Paige’s lying about test scores and calling teacher groups terrorists to Snow’s comprehensive cluelessness and Elaine Chao’s assertion that the stock market is the ultimate index of worker well-being (!). But with all due disrespect to Rumsfeld and Condeliar, I think I have to give the “worst of the worst” prize to Ashcroft. None of his high-profile terrorism prosecutions amounted to anything, he repeatedly accused his opponents of abetting terrorism (while always seeming eager, at least to me, to ape their methods and mindset; his frustration with our quaint notions of due process and constitutional protections was often couched in language about how al Qaeda doesn’t bother with such things), he politicized everything (hounding dissident staff out of the agency and imposing his Dominionist “Christian” worldview on what generally had been a scrupulously professional department under adminsitrations of both parties), and generally seemed most effective in prosecuting marijuana smokers and covering up statue boobies.

    Gonzales, for all his own failings, is actually a substantial improvement.

  • gw is the worst, everyone else is tied for second.
    Though a special mention for Colin Powell. The man just sat there and let the neocons take over.

  • Rumsfeld because whether it is for an exit strategy or the release of documents he won’t give a time table or deadline. The man makes his own hours but gets a guarenteed paycheck from us. Damn him!

  • One of the toughest questions I’ve seen on the internets lately. Could you narrow down the perameters? In foriegn policy, Condi and Cheney run neck and neck, In law, domestic and international, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld. In defense, Rumdfeld and Cheney; in economics, is Sec Snow even aware of how much US debt is in Chinas hands? In the Environment/ interior, Gail Norton and Cheney, Champions of oil rights, coal rights, snowmobiles, and mercury. in Education, the former book cooker of Texas Rod Paige. What da’ya know, it’s an ensemble cast! At least none of them are lying about consentual sex.

  • What a choice!

    I’ve seen — several times, in fact — cases where neighborhood dogs, individually loved by their owners, less well trained than they should have been but well fed and loved, dogs who have never behaved in a vicious manner, run off together and do something utterly awful. The first time I witnessed this was in Europe where the dogs killed a baby sitting in its stroller. You can imagine the horror and grief, including the horror and grief on the part of the dogs’ owners. And disbelief.

    I keep feeling I’m witnessing something similar in our government. As with the dogs, it has to do with both a missing piece of socialization combined with pack mentality. I think we have to face the fact that Cheney has been described as sweet and humorous, Ashcroft a loyal and kind friend, Gonzales as a trustworthy, decent human being… and on and on. Where they stop being decent human beings is the point at which they become members of a truly dangerous pack.

    Our leaders are sociopaths enabled, one might say, by their owners, the people who voted for them. We let them run unattended and are now wondering what the hell has happened. We’re the owners of the dogs in that pack. Some Americans love Cheney and Ashcroft. Some Americans also have pit bulls and love watching them savage other dogs in the world’s park. Sociopaths? You’d better believe it! As for the rest of us, we’ve gotten used to government taking care of itself and us. Elected officials? We just have them; we don’t take responsibility for them. Unfortunately, they’ll be replaced by another set one of these days and it won’t be a whole lot different from this bunch unless we teach them some ground rules and keep watch over them. The guys who love to encourage viciousness in pitt bulls and presidents? I don’t know what to do about them.

  • Rumsfeld has lied regularly, thus tacitly endorsing all the atrocities committed in the name of the USA. He has destroyed the civilised world’s trust in the US for a generation. Nothing can possibly beat that – not even Ashcroft’s attempts to create a police state at home.

  • I remember before the 2000 election that the Bush people sent around Bush’s foreign policy resume — which consisted of about 6 countries he had been to on vacation, along the lines of Bermuda, etc. Despite his father’s positions and his family’s wealth.

    I was looking for the actual list (didn’t find it) when I came across this site that has lots of interesting statistics about the Bush administration. http://www.esato.com/archive/t.php/t-60285,s-550 Check it out.

  • I’d have to go with Rumsfeld if I had to pick a single one. But there are so many, who are so spectacularly awful, that my gut reaction is that the worst one is whoever spoke last.

  • Rumsfeld may be the worst, but Rice is the one who grates the most on my nerves. She feels like a personal embarrassment to me as a woman. She has no spine and no truth in her.

  • Rummy. “Miles Gloriosus,” the classic image in Roman Literature of the boastful soldier.

    There’s a special spot for this bastard in the outer ring of the seventh circle of the Inferno:
    Outer ring filled with the The violent against people and property, in a river of boiling blood (Canto 12).

  • Colin Powell. He provided a fig leaf of respectability for Bush & Co.’s duplicity and wanton disregard for international law. He knew full well what he was doing when he put on that pathetic dog and pony show at the UN with his grainy photographs and teaspoon. Whatever his private misgivings were, he positioned himself to be seen as “standing above the fray” as the neocons swarmed out of the Pentagon and White House and into the State Department. And like a rat, he deserted the sinking ship at the beginning of the second term. He has never taken a principled stance on the neocons excessive influence or their stupid and disasterous policies. He still keeps to himself, wrapped in his dignity. He wants to be judged as the solitary rose growing atop the dung hill of the Bush administration.

  • Although not a cabinet member, cheney is the puppet master. No one else comes close; they all answer to big dick. If cheney so much as snapped his fingers, rummy, rice,… any and all of ’em… would be out the door in a heartbeat. The big dick has scared the hell out of me from the get-go, and he scares me more and more so now ( Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. ) as he potentially starts to lose some of his power to do as he pleases, according to the polls. This is one scary dude, make no mistake.

  • Even though he’s not technically in the Cabinet, I’d have to pick Cheney since he created Bush’s band of “excellent and experienced advisors” (making himself VP) and still pretty much runs the show.

    It really is a hard question to answer though since every single thing about the Bush administration stinks. Even Nixon got a few things right. Even Millard Fillmore did. I can’t think of a single good thing about BushCo. Not one. At all. Zip.

  • This is, indeed, a difficult choice. I tend to agree with PW regarding the terrible synergy of the overall cabinet in terms of deceit, arrogance, incompetence and ruthlessness in pursuit of ideological goals. I am going to go a bit against the grain and select the cabinet member who I feel failed me the most, and that would be Colin Powell. This man was brought into the Bush administration to throw a sheen of statesmanship on a clearly unqualified president. Despite their own self description as “grown ups” who were (a) going to keep Georgie from screwing up, and (b) “save” the country from the adolescents of the Clinton years, I do not believe that the credentials of Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice garnered the universal respect (reverence?) that those of Colin Powell did. I understand that Powell has long had detractors – some powerful ones within the administration – but the country at large loves the guy. For moderates, he was to be the fulcrum on the balance wheel. I believe history will judge him a mere abettor of W and Co. He should have stood up to Cheney and his band of brutes. He did not. Instead, he went to the UN and lent a patina of credibility to the charade. I personally was unconvinced, but the “average” citizens with whom I live an work were swayed by the power of his “rep.”

    I admit that going in to the first Bush administration I had no idea that Cheney could be so ruthless, corrupt, arrogant, and deceitful. I knew Rumsfeld was a force to be reckoned with; I just did not know the “opportunties” for misfeasance he would receive and run with. And I knew that Ashcroft was a disaster from the moment of his nomination. I did not foresee the stratosperic limits of Rice’s incompentence and girlish deference to the dear leader. She is the cabinet member I am least able to listen to. I did, however, have greater expertations of Secretary Powell. He fell far short and continues to do so (did you catch his star turn on the Daily Show?). Therefore, he gets my vote.

  • I always felt there was a huge amount of racism in the way Powell was let off the hook so many times. I hope the next generation and the ones following will be free enough of that racist condescension to give him the treatment he deserves — the round file.

  • Photo finish: Chaney and Rumsfeld. They raise obtuseness and political missteps to a new level.

  • I hate living history, this is the type of thing we should be dicussing about previous administrations not the current one.

    Given that we still have over 3 years to go, and that the walls are starting to close in on these people, this question could be a bit premature. At this point I can only come up with who was the best, Richard Clarke – because he was willing to tell the truth.

  • Hey Mark. I think you’re right!

    And it makes me wonder: If we went back to Bush 1’s administration 15 years ago, what would we find. Well, we’d find many of the same people. What did they look like then?

  • Chris Matthews. I’ve finally figured it out: “Hardball” is a reference to the the GOP nuts that have been slamming against his chin since W took office.

    His commentary during the ’04 republican convention was the most patent display of ass kissing I’ve seen since “Arsenio Hall” was cancelled. Every time McCain, Arnold Affenschwantzer or Guilliani go on his show, Matthews gets this doe eyed look like he wants to hold hands and stroll through a rose garden with them.

    Dubya could get caught on tape fucking Miss Beasley and Tweety would go on a rant about how congressional Democrats’disgust at prez on beagle action is an exaple of their contempt of middle america and exibit A of why they’re doomed to fail in ’06 and all future elections.

    If right Wing AM radio is W’s Axis Sally, and Fox his Tokyo Rose, then Chris Matthews is his Ezra Pound.

    Yeah, I know, that last one was kind of a Hitler reference…deal with it!

  • The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — whitehouse.gov

    So, I have to stick with my original pick Cheney. And lets face it, Cheney picked all the rest of them.

    But yes, Powell is up there on my list of worst cabinet members. The rest are just evil, stupid, greedy, mendacious pigs. But Powell supposedly “knew better” but did it anyway, to further his connections and career. But then, his little role in the My Lai coverup so many years ago should have been a warning sign.

  • Condom Rice, her failure killed 3K at the WTC. Rumsfield has only killed 1700+ so far, if you believe the numbers. I can’t include Oily Dick because this was about the preznits cabinet, not the preznit.

  • Tommy Thompson, who had zero experience as a health official and botched two flu epidemics. The only reason Bush appointed him was because the Repugs needed to put Wisconsin in the win column in 2004, and Tommy failed at that, too.

  • My vote goes to Rumfeld,but I would include Rush Limbaugh in the mix just for the fact that he echos the lies told daily by the rest of these idiots.I would like to know why this pill-popping prick`s show is broadcast to our troups using our tax dollars to fund it.

  • Agreement with various combinations of above, EXCEPT let’s not forget about our pal Karl Rove (okay, also Cambone, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrahms, Gonzales, Haynes, …)

    Cheney/Rove = the Kingpins, but neither are part of the cabinet, Rove being “just” a “staffer”;
    Richard Clarke = almost a hero?;
    Colin Powell = the hipocrasy (sp?…looks funny) of selling out.

    Wow, what a creepy bunch.

  • The only comment above that I really disagree with is Rummy ‘only’ killing 1700. Do all the civilian casualities not count?

    Part of this evil crew’s strength is that most American’s remain untouched and uneffected by the immediate effects of their horrible acts…

    -jjf

  • I can’t choose, the rogues’ gallery is all too full, but I just wanted to comment on your intro to this piece. I remember in the very earliest stages of the runup to the 2000 campaign, before any primaries or anything, how the MSM was tooting Bush’s horn and saying how great his chances were based on one thing: all the MONEY he had behind him. I remember thinking at the time how disgusting it was that this neophyte ne’er do well could even be seriously considered for the presidency, and took it as the surest sign yet that the system is profoundly busted. Six years later, it’s still busted. The fact that the MSM was so enthusiastic about the entitled fratboy showed at that early date how comfortable they were in his pocket (or he in theirs). Very sad indeed.

  • Well, I hope they don’t use the “race card” on me, but I have to say Condi Rice, her testimony on the 9/11 investigation is one for the Hall of Shame. All the other are as bad as she is, but I bet she got some credit just because she is a black woman, but equality has arrived and we can call a criminal a criminal regardelss of gender or race.

  • Rumsfeld, and lemme tell ya why:

    * Advocated for war with Iraq when reality-based people knew that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11.
    * Advocated for going into Iraq with as few troops as possible, which contributed (and contributes) to the chaos there now.
    * Torture and murder at US-run prisons and detention centers. Rummy couldn’t have been very convincing when he offered Bush his resignation over this. (“Ya know, if you really want me to know, I could, maybe, step down or something?”) And he can’t be screaming very loud for accountability when each branch seems to produce nothing but whitewash.

    I’ll stop there since that last one is the biggee. He is the top guy at the time of our worst actions, so he gets my vote.

  • Rumsfeld…Cheney…Rumsfeld…Cheney…Ashcroft…Rumsfeld…Cheney…

    soooo hard. I think I actually might have to go with Ashcroft though. Despite the horrors that the neocons have inflicted in Iraq, Ashcroft was the true enemy from within. He seemed to try the hardest to destroy what makes America truly great.

    But its soo hard to choose with this particularly loathsome administration.

  • It’s got to be Rice if full-on incompetence is the measure. She truly didn’t understand what her job was as NSA director. I loved that line when she said, “It’s not my job to referee disputes in the intelligence community.”

    Oh, and when she said that before 9/11 we were getting reports that said something “very, very, very” big was going to happen – no doubt, she used three verys.

    Oh, and when she said that “no one could have possibly imagined that someone would crash planes into buildings”?

    Her ineptitude is amazing. She’s always trying to get out of the way of any responsibilty.

  • We should all go back and read #31 again. America’s failure to include the Iraqi civilian victims (of American troops and torturers, that is) has outraged two sets of people who will take a generation to forgive it.

    First, the Moslem world. One could get away with not counting the dead heathens back in the early crusades, but these days that sort of behaviour invites use of the term “racist”. Sorry to pull anybody up on this point, but rag-heads are actually people, not some kind of vermin. One can get away with not counting dead cockroaches, perhaps, but decent behaviour demands that one counts dead humans. OK?

    The second outraged set is the civilized Western world. In the US, that is the half of the population that never did approve of the wholesale killing of Iraqis in order to gain control of the oilfields. Outside the US, it is the 80-90% who didn’t approve. Longtime admirers of American values can scarcely believe how those values have been laid waste by this nation’s leaders.

    You know something else that should really shock us here? The absence of any serious voting (for the worst Cabinet member) for Gonzales – the man who told the President what torture the US could get away with. Admittedly, America’s Attorney-Generals have numbered some real shits among them – but advocates of torture?!

    • Comments are closed.