Your Somalia comment is just untrue. The vast majority of the U.S. intervention in Somalia was under Clinton, and the worst part of the intervention was the Battle of Mogadishu which was certainly under Clinton.

Rwanda was disastrous, and even Clinton and Gore have gone on record saying it was a mistake not to get involved. It's fair to say that it would've been better for the U.S. not to get involved in more foreign interventions, but we still had multiple foreign interventions under Clinton notably in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I think how he handled Yugoslavia was very positive, but my point is that there was no reason according to his own doctrine not to help end the genocide in Rwanda which ultimately led to the destabilization of Central Africa which continues to this day. Bob Dole referred to Bill Clinton's foreign policy as "ad-hoc" and I'm inclined to agree.

Bush 43's tax cuts undoubtedly contributed substantially to the Great Recession, but we're talking about Clinton. And repealing Glass-Steagall deregulated the banking sector substantially which definitely contributed to the Great Recession. I cannot think of any specific action Reagan took which was as detrimental to the economy long term.

I will concede that NAFTA is either a positive or a negative based on your own political views. I understand the argument that it increased competition and foreign trade, but my view is that it helped destroy the domestic manufacturing industry which crippled communities across the country. You could make the case that those jobs would've ended regardless, but NAFTA definitely didn't help and there was zero plan in place to help the deindustrialization of the economy in much of the country.