>>Yes it does in the first paragraph. It says we have had record-long economic growth that began in 1991 with an 8 month blip [recession in 2001] and growth again beginning at the end of 2001. Clinton did not take office until January 1993. Clinton also had ZIP to do with the technological boom of the 90s that fueled much of this growth. Just as he had ZIP to do with its bust that helped fuel the downturn.
>
>I think we can safely say that he had nothing to do with the downturn, since it began in March 2001 when he was out of office. But I disagree with you on Clinton not having anything to do with the boom of the 1990s. I have seen several articles by economists who credit Clinton's determination in fighting the budget deficit with the boom.

Partially wrong. While Clinton was out of office, Bush II had not been in office long enough to have ANY policies or even laws passed to even remotely affect the economy good of bad. So yes, something well prior to March 2001 caused the downturn of the economy and did happen during the last year of Clinton. I point to the IT bust and not necessarily anything Clinton did or did not do.

If you choose to blame Bush II for that downturn, then you have to give his tax cuts and other accomplishments for the return of the growth. You probably have to give him the credit for that upturn anyway. A growth that gets very little positive play in the mainstream media outlets.