The thing is there has been little in the way of tangible differences between Clinton and Bush policy.
Bingo! Many people here want to scream and blame this whole thing on Clinton and his immoral and anti-American foreign policy. I agree with them on the nature of Clinton's foreign policy, but if Bush is so much better why has he not lifted a finger to right any of these wrongs? Indeed, all indications thus far are that Bush supports wholeheartedly all of Clinton's adventures in the Balkans. So where does that leave the Bush-bots?
To be fair to Bush, Clinton and the U.N., throughout history it's always been next to impossible to keep the peace in the Balkans. They are always fighting each other, always revenging some 20- or 200-year-old vendetta, etc. The Romans took I believe two legions to conquer the area and several more just to keep the peace there. Historically, the only way to have peace there is to rule with an iron fist and immediately kill anyone or any group who gets out of line, as in Tito's method.
Sometimes I think we're really fooling ourselves to think we can do any better.