No, it wasn't, was it. So ergo there must be some hidden reason the Bush Sr. administration took the actions it did, because you can't wrap your brain around something new or out of the ordinary - right?
Given the the Clinton administration lurched from one scandal to another, anything it undertook can be viewed as damage control, but then not everybody was looking to the administration for their world news, were they? Are you really trying to sell the hypothesis that NATO's European nations and Canada resorted to military action in order to cover Clinton's butt? You just haven't pondered how stupid that is, have you.
They, like I, have arrived at my 'line' independent of what the Clinton administration was selling, and the fact that your only recourse is to retreat to this last line of defence in your argument merely points out the weakness of your position.
Why don't you check out what some of the writers of the material you are relying upon are saying about our current involvement in Iraq? A "No blood for oil" t-shirt would go great with your "Free Slobo" one.