Let us take another look at what I posted.
To be frank, Pres. Obama was only able to take out OBL by staying the course and indeed ramping up the intensity of anti-terrorist operations and processes that found their birth during Pres. Bush's years.
I am not attempting to take credit from Pres. Obama and give it to Pres. Bush for the killing of OBL, but it is very, very hasty to credit the President with Operation Neptune Spear. The whole thing was developed several rungs under him, and of course the persons responsible for executing it had nothing to do with Pres. Obama. Pres. Obama just happened to be the chairman of the board, so to speak, when Neptune Spear went down.
All we can definitively credit him with is green-lighting the mission.
I'd like to note that the part you so carefully extracted is immediately followed by the following phrase.
I am not attempting to take credit from Pres. Obama and give it to Pres. Bush for the killing of OBL
Still, the fact remains that President Obama only managed to kill OBL (and continue to smash up AQ) by severely ramping up some of President Bush's more controversial anti-terror policies--drone strikes and boots-on-the-ground incursions into Pakistan. I am not sure how this can be denied. Everyone knows that drone strikes in Pakistan only began to happen at the tail end of President Bush's administration, and it's also non-controversial that President Obama did them with much greater vigor and aggression than his predecessor. Certainly, it's not like the War on Terror strategies implemented by President Obama are a 180 degree deviance from the War on Terror strategies implemented by President Bush.
I did not credit President Bush with the killing of OBL. I did not give full credit to President Obama for killing OBL either, because we are only certain that he green-lighted the mission. I repeat: Neptune Spear was thought up by persons several rungs under him, and it was executed by persons who had nothing to do with him.
I am usually pretty careful to not credit particular leaders with military victories, because I believe that it's particular strategies and policies rather than persons which lead to victory. You could say that I support drone strikes and surgical incursions into Pakistan regardless of whether or not President Bush thought them up and President Obama ramped them up.
There is certainly not much doubt that OBL escaped into Pakistan via Tora Bora, but I'd be pretty hesitant to say that President Bush was negligent in "allowing" that to happen. The Battle of Tora Bora was largely fought by US proxies--the NA--and backed up by air strikes and spec ops guys. The temporary truce during which OBL probably escaped was negotiated between NA and AQ representatives, and had nothing to do with US operatives, let alone President Bush.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect for the US President to have foreseen such a situation.
At most, you could fault President Bush for using proxies rather than high saturations of US ground troops, but that opens up the light footprint vs. all out invasion debate, as well as the sheer practicality of a large-scale ground invasion in a landlocked country surrounded by nations with whom we are not allied and who have limited infrastructure at best. These are extremely interesting debates and it does not make sense, even if one comes to a particular conclusion about which military strategies should have been used, to demonize the opposition as incompetent.