Nope, sure didn't and here are the reasons why - Clinton was cagey enough to stick with relatively safer combat actions like air wars (except for Somalia, but that is something different in itself) and Clinton, in my opinion, didn't start a war such as Bush has done under the same pretexts. One last thing - every job Clinton has had deals mostly with elected office, so in a way, one could make the argument that he has at least given something back to the country, while Bush has been bailed out time and time again by influential friends and family members.

If not for the Bush name, Bush would be nothing more than some dry drunk stumbling around out there still looking for God.