Over on another blog someone was pointing out that if only Bush had spent more money on the levees, then everything would be ok. A reader pointed out that Bush spent more than Clinton had on Army Corps projects in the area (I don't actually know if that's true, it doesn't matter for this point), and the blogger responded that comparisons to Clinton are irrelevent. How exactly is that irrelevent? I mean if you are going to find someone to blame, you can't just single out one random person who did nothing different than anyone else, and say it's their fault. The logic people sometimes use to attack Bush is ridiculous.