Both end up letting roughly the same number of locals die--to date. But Clinton has America providing only 10% of the peackeepers while Bush has us at 90 percent. Clinton manages to put 22-23 coalition troops on the ground per 1,000 local pop. Bush averages far less than half that number. Clinton manages to pull off the Balkans with almost no casualties. Now, those states supply us with more peacekeepers than NATO's putting in, meaning they're already security exporters. We're roughly at 3k in deaths in Iraq. It has become an exporter of terrorists. Tell me which president gets judged by history as more effective and a better commander-in-chief? Seriously, on record alone, who keeps things under control and who spins out of control?