As usual, the truth is somewhere down the middle. And as a third party watcher, I can look at both sides of the argument (something which many conservative commentators have too much vested interest to do.
Clinton, on the whole did a good job. The US Government was running a surplus, international relations were excellent. Yes, he was impeached, but by a partisan effort by the right wing. And they lost, and he kept his job. Tough cookies. Besides, if a guy has access to "The Button," I think he should be relaxed and happy, if you catch my drift.
That said, he did propse to invade Iraq. The tipping point was when Madeline Albright was shouted down for bringing the idea up during a speech at a university. The idea went away soon after that.
Furthermore, the US was not a vigilant on his watch. I don't know if that is a policy failing, or simply a comfort zone that came from good international relations, or just poor information sharing.
Bush has several economic policies that concern me. The rich are getting richer under his watch, and corporations are less accountable for their actions. The real results of some of these policies won't be felt for several years, but rest assured, you WILL feel them. And I don't think that the Pax Americanus is necessarily a good way to continue US economic dominance given the rise of China and India (although I think a natural correction is due in their move towards economic power, much like Japan in the early 90s.)
That said, he showed a certain amount of strong leadership in the days following September 11, 2001. But Giuliani was even stronger.
Then there are his close ties to the oil industry. Interesting that the price has gone through the roof under his watch, which benefits his oil company buddies. And the price of gas and oil, for whomever said it was a result of demand, is more now a problem of supply and a lack of refinign capacity. Look at what happened when one of Suncor's refineries went down at the same time as threats came against Arabia. There was a huge jump in price because there was concern about the oil supply and the ability to turn it into gas. The irony is, the high prices might make it feasible to bring greater refining capacity online.
As for the case to invade Iraq...well, let's just say it was never very strong. Colin Powell showed images of trucks leaving chemical plants as evidence. By that logic, and city in the US with a chemicval plant was manufacturing arms, and was worthy of bombing.
The world knew from several sources including an ex-US Marine who was on the weapons inspection team, that Iraq had no WMD capability. And to this day, no WMDs have been found. The world knew that OBL was NOT connected with Iraq, and in fact was hiding in Afganistan and Pakistan. If he isn't in Iraq, and is not connected to Iraq, why invade Iraq? Keep your eye on the ball, man. Even GHW Bush said in his memoirs that invading Iraq would have meant insurgency and years of occupation.
All that said, the troops in Iraq have a dangerous mission under difficult circumstances. It is far from complete. They have the support and respect of many Iraqis, but face death at the hands of others.
My grandfather fought as a pilot in WWI and enlisted as a 45-year-old private in the Canadian Army for WWII. He enlisted because it was the right thing to do. The reasons for invading Iraq are not so clear, but this is: The troops deserve everyone's support, even if you don't support the reasons behind their presence.
But It think that if Iraq's main export was avocados, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Probably not.