The only thing wrong with the US-led invasions in the wake of the September 11 attacks was the lack of contingency planning. Having arguably the most powerful military in the world (I'm going out on a limb and saying that the Chinese and possibly the Russians have a stronger military) doesn't mean you don't need to plan for the bumps in the road. Everyone knew that resistance to an invasion from regular military forces would be relatively weak and that insurgency and resistance fighters would pose a greater threat to Coalition forces after the 'victory' announcement, yet it would outwardly appear that no great effort went into planning for it.
Clinton never had to deal with any sort of attack on the scale of those Bush faced in 2001, so the whole point of Clinton possibly handling the attacks better is moot. Don't pretend otherwise.
IQ has nothing to do with the ability to lead a country. Do you know exactly what Bush's IQ might be? I have an IQ of 152, does that make me a better leader than Bush? Should I be sworn into office straight away? Don't judge a man on his apparent inability to make a convincing speech. John Howard is hardly the most convincing man on the lecturn and he is the most successful Prime Minister our country has had for a long time. Our economy is going gangbusters, inflation is more or less under control, taxes are widely regarded as fairly moderate and our standard of living has never been better. All the while we are making valid and important contributions to the war effort, but I wouldn't expect anyone (except maybe the Brits) to have any sort of handle on what our military is doing.
Listen to Haz children. He might come across as a bit of a clown but the man is intelligent and educated, and holds well formed opinions on political topics.
The greatest delight is to mark one's enemy, prepare everything, avenge oneself thoroughly, and then go to sleep.