The clintons reached for "right wing Christian militias" just about every time something went wrong, if not a militia then a "right wing anti-abortion fanatic". Branch Davidians could be posed as both.
The government (I don't even assign this to an administration - just "the government") wanted to see if the public would accept such force against a "domestic threat". Obviously, the public did accept it. Note that they'd got by with Ruby Ridge before, but that was merely an ambush.
(The blinding failure to provide any proof of the many bizarre charges - including the hundreds of automatic rifles - also shows me that the public is capable of accepting any comforting rationalization for government force.)
Clinton needed a diversion weekly for most of his term, this covered several weeks.
Presumably, a few ex-body guards needed special handling but I'm not convinced of that one.
Although I personally think that Elian Gonzalez' return to Cuba was the correct move (not the method but the return itself), that also indicates that the clintons never shied away from using force; it was not out of character.
In part because I think Iraq was intended as a message to the rest of the middle-east - I also wonder who else the administration wanted to show that they were willing to take extreme action to put down those who displeased them?
(Sorry that took so much space, be thankful I didn't stretch it to include FRY/Kosovo)
All of us.