Disaster Comparisons Go On And On

While reading a NewMax article, I came across another disaster response comparison that has gotten very little play. I've noted previously hurricane response comparisons that shine favorably on Dubya and his administration, no matter what the bulk of reporting seems to indicate.

President Clinton, on other the other hand, got glowing reviews for
responding to his administration's biggest disaster, the Oklahoma City bombing -
even though he took a day longer to arrive on the scene than Bush did last
week.
New Orleans' levees broke on a Tuesday - and Bush had his own
boots-on-the-ground just three days later on Friday.When the Alfred P. Murrah
Building exploded on Wednesday morning, April 19, 1995, President Clinton didn't
travel to the scene for four full days.
And when he finally arrived, there
was no grumbling by troubled pundits about the delay. In fact, Clinton's
response to Oklahoma City is remembered to this day as the turning point of his
political fortunes.

Now, for those of us old enough to remember -

The double standard becomes even more obvious when reaction to Katrina is
compared with what remains the worst law enforcement debacle in U.S. history -
the Clinton administration's decision to rout the Branch Davidians from their
encampment at Waco.
More children were killed in that April 19, 1993, assault
than died in Oklahoma City. Yet the Clinton administration received little if
any blame - and no one was forced to resign.
In fact, after then-Attorney
General Janet Reno publicly accepted responsibility, she was hailed as a hero by
sympathetic reporters, an irony that's likely not lost on Bush's allegedly
"disgraced" ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown.

It never ceases to amaze me how the light can shine so differently on an issue or situation depending on who the president is at the time. The more and more comparisons that are examined, the better Bush looks. Maybe that's why we hear so little about these things in the media.

Just a thought.