I recently got into a dustup on another blog about comparing the Bush administration with a couple of others in recent history, and an interesting comparison struck me. I’m not quite sure how I feel about it, but some interesting arguments could be made.
The left tends to blame President Bush for 9/11 — some even going so far as to concoct insane conspiracy theories about how he “let” it happen, if not actually arranged it.
But I don’t recall too many people blaming Bill Clinton for the fiery end of the siege of the Branch Davidians’ compound in Waco, Texas, when 76 Americans, 27 of them children, all died.
On 9/11, it was clearly (whackos aside) an outside force that caused the deaths. In Waco, government agents had a direct hand in matters — whether they inadvertently started the fire or simply prompted the Davidians to start it themselves.
Is it fair to blame Bush for 9/11? Is it fair to blame Clinton for Waco?
At the time, I was pretty firmly against blaming Clinton for it. I was firmly in the “they were crazy, and crazy people do crazy things” camp. By the current standards, though, I’m not so sure that I still feel that way.