I don't care to get into a discussion with you about exactly why you've thought president Bush was doing a "tremendous job" before the attacks, suffice to say I find that assessment a bit surprising.
All of Bush's allies, and sheer common sense, say that last week's attacks should be played coolly, without getting into the kind of commotion Bush has got into and the terrorists wanted him to get into. He's called the situation a "war" (ok, there's the war on drugs and the war on cancer, too, so this extremely heavy term was ruined to begin with), a "crusade" (!), and a "battle between good and evil". In the Arab world, this all works to legitimize the attacks - in war buildings get bombed and a crusade/jihad is what the attackers probably had in mind, too. You need to realize that in many Arab countries with nominally pro-Western governments, the population harbours deep resentment for Western policies in the Middle-East. Saudi Arabia is a case in point.
There should be a thorough investigation, the perpetrators should be arrested, extradited if necessary, and imprisoned. Case closed.
Someone asked how we'd feel over here if an A320 was flown "into the EU". In fact, there are reports that a cell of al-Queda planned to use nerve gas in the European Parliament earlier this year. Imagining myself in that situation, I can imagine that anger would be more widespread here. However, we shouldn't give in to anger. We should handle these matters in such a way that we don't end up glamorizing and legitimizing the attacks with our rhetoric or responses. Terrorists are criminals that deserve to be locked up. They aren't a major religious or social issue that requires us to return to crusades and global warfare.