Clinton's technique was symbolism rather than substance. Clinton was all about scapegoating and smearing the opposition rather than actually making tough decisions for the good of the country. You can't actually believe that Clinton would have risked military action against a nominally powerful army like Iraq's, against UN opposition. Bush did it because he believed it would succeed in its objective, and would reduce the appeal and the capabilities of terrorists. Opponents think, against logic IMHO, that it will stir up more terrorists. Bush thinks that appearing weak to potential terrorists is what made us a target--not anything the we have done which we would be willing to abandon the right to do in future.Democratic pols would have us appease, and ultimately surrender to, whoever chooses to make life difficult for us. Bush would make life substantially more difficult for such people, in the confident hope that the bullies will decide the game isn't worth it and go try to bother someone else.