Bush vs. Clinton

Often I hear people complain about President Bush and compare him to President Clinton in the same breath. I summarize the two presidents like this:

President Bush is the mayor of a town. He sees a fire in the woods near the town, and in order to protect the town from the fire, he decides to dig a trench between the forest and the town. However, he uses a bulldozer to do this, and knocks down half the forest to protect the town.

President Clinton is the mayor of a town. He sees a fire in the woods near the town, and in order to protect the town from the fire, he orders people to build wells and spins it as economic growth. The wells provide water to put out the fire when it reaches the town, however, the forest is lost and some houses on the fringe while townspeople dig the wells and fight the fire.

People of both sides have their issues. Does Bush really need to use a bulldozer and destroy all that forest?? Did Clinton really need to build a well instead of using the water already available in a nearby stream or previous wells??

Critics today say Bush has used too much power in Iraq preempting terrorism, and Clinton didn't do enough when there was genocide in Rwanda. No, no whole countries will be annihilated like the forest, my point is to argue that both presidents end up with the same amount of damage, only Bush causes part of it and Clinton allows others to cause all of it.

I don't think either way is good. I feel that a pit should be dug, but a small, manageable one. Not one with a bulldozer, and not a well.

Please, opine.