"There is no question that the economy of at least the last Clinton term was a facade, based on out of proportion values placed on the .coms sprouting up. This also led to a very weak economy" ... "the extra money left avalable by those cuts allowed the overall economy to continue running along, benefitting all."
I think those assertions either miss the point or are wrong on the facts. Even in the first Clinton term, and at least part of the second, the economy experienced very strong growth. Take out the bubble at the end, and the record is still exceptional. If the marginally higher tax rates at those times were a drag on growth, it's hard to see it. I don't know why that evidence is so easily dismissed by those who claim the Clinton tax rates were so awful for the economy. (Some Republicans at the time said the tax hikes would kill the recovery that had just started.)
W's tax cuts were poorly distributed. As I wrote earlier, they were originally proposed to give back the surplus mainly to the wealthy (despite looming debt from entitlement programs and no plan to fix them). When the economy tanked and there was no surplus, the same cuts were marketed as an economic stimulus. But most economists agree that the best way to stimulate the economy through tax cuts is to direct the money at people who will spend it, not give it to the wealthy. (If I'm a business owner, why should I hire or rehire people when most consumers still can't afford to buy more stuff?) Consequently, we got poor bang for the buck for the debt we took on. Growth out of a recessionary period is generally strong, as it was under Clinton. The growth after W's recession as been anemic by comparison.
And the tax cuts have not benefited all. The wealthy have done amazingly well, the middle class and the poor generally have not seen their situation improve. One could argue that the middle class and poor would have done even worse without the tax cuts--it's always hard to replay the history tape under different conditions--but that doesn't explain why the rich should have reaped such spectacular gains while other income groups have remained stagnant at best.
Not to mention that the administration's debt estimates assume nothing will be done to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (which is essentially becoming a tax increase on the middle class) and include the temporary Social Security surpluses, which allow them to claim hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that will have to be accounted for at some point.
So back to the OP: national debt contributes to a weak currency. While some of the dollar's fall may be due to other factors such as globalization, I think W's flawed fiscal policies share some of the responsibility.