Bush responded to what America was screaming for, vengeance. Terrorists brought their war to us, and we responded. Congress, including Hilary and Kerry voted for the invasion. And yes, Bush did respond immediately by shutting down all air travel and secured the borders. Maybe some do not remember 9/11 but I remember exactly what I was doing at the time it happened.
Bush did get us into a war, and Obama being the pacifist he is, only wanted to chicken out of it and leave it unfinished. Being a weak "lead from behind" administrator, has emboldened terrorists to think they can bully the world. But, once we have a leader in the White House, terrorists will suddenly realize that not all Americans are as weak as a small minority of cowardly politicians.
If we had a Bush-like leader in the White House, I doubt there would have been an attack on France. Just my opinion. Terrorists are dedicated cowards. They will bully unarmed citizens and blow themselves up, but they are still cowards. They won't fight on an equal basis. And they know that America is leaderless right now and unable to organize and lead the world against them. That will change in a year, when we elect a stronger (Republican) president.

Our military trains to fight a war, not rebuild countries. We have warriors not peace corps volunteers in our military. Unleash them and allow them to do what they are experts at and the middle East will either toe the line or die. This is not the time for a weak leader. Another reason we don't want to elect Sanders, Hilary or Ran Paul.

And remember that in war there will be collateral damage; citizens killed. It's not something that we want to do, but sometimes necessary to achieve a resolution to the conflict. We dropped two big ones on Japan and won the war. Better to have collateral damage overseas than to have twin towers here.