I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
(those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda- and
didn't want to get involved in Yugoslavia, either. The Europeans could
have taken more initiative there, and I think Clinton was _partially_
reluctant for fear he'd then be charged with racial disparity after
doing nothing over Rwanda. Gore pushed him to get involved- one reason
I think he would have made a pretty good President besides his interest
in re-inventing government eg getting various levels to talk to each
other eg those FBI memos which might have prevented 9/11.
Clinton did wake up to al Quaeda after embassy and Cole bombings,
but by then was embroiled in Lewinsky mess and feared he'd be accused
of 'wag the dog' diversion if he acted too strenuously- thus the
cruise missile strikes were his only response.
The tech boom was undoubtedly responsible for part of the surplus,
but Clinton did manage finances pretty responsibly, and deserves credit
for it. Were people really so overtaxed in those years? I think the
federal tax cuts are resulting in a shifting of burdens to state/ local
levels, and the middle class taxpayers, meaning most of us. Not to
mention the shear recklessness of the debt, which will haunt us for
many, many years.