Clinton said he authorized the CIA to get bin Laden. The report says no such authorization was given. No real warning was passed on to the Bush administration, either.

Can you please substantiate that claim with an actual quote from the report? I'm not familiar with that report myself, and it contrasts wildly from Richard Clarke's claims, amongst many others. Not that I don't believe you, but I've seen more than enough examples of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, that I never discount the possibility of a Bush sycophant fabricating or seriously misrepresenting data in an attempt to vent their anger.

That's was not only not news then, it lacked any specific information. What precisely should Bush have done?

Well, for one, he could ensure that our defenses (such as those fighter jets) were ready, rather than engaging in training exercises. In general, he runs the country, and by putting at least some modicum of concern towards a threat like in the PDB (just as you would have demanded from Clinton), he could have ensured our defenses were at the ready, and that our intel community was attuned to this threat. But I understand, fishing is a very compelling pasttime...

He's taken specific steps to deal with the threat after we were attacked and the loony left screams bloody murder.

Um, not quite. Bush hasn't done much to "deal with the threat." To be more accurate, he's used the perceived threat as an excuse to pursue a highly divisive and destructive agenda that existed long before 9/11. He has invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (thus fulfilling the goal of the PNAC), he clamped down on civil liberties across the board, and labeled his opponents as traitors. That's what the left screams bloody murder about.

fueled by an irrational hatred of Bush

I wouldn't call the hatred of Bush "irrational." I assume you hate our Islamic Terrorist enemies, right? However, through his policies, Bush has wreaked far more damage on this country than that ragtag bunch of cave dwellers could ever have dreamed of. Drained the treasury? Check. Promoted recruitment for the enemy in a way they could have never done on their own? Check. Embroiled the military (including the national guard) in a quagmire, such that they're unable to address real threats? Check. Addressed the concept of "they hate our freedom" by eliminating freedoms? Check. Overseen the destruction of a US city (New Orleans)? Check.

Seriously, for all the fear and hatred you laud on the terrorists for killing 3,000 Americans, the direct consequences of Bush's policies have resulted in far greater destruction.

You're willing to deny the reality of our enemy because Bush says it.

Again, wrong. We're denying the existential threat you believe is posed by the Islamic terrorists, not because Bush says it, but because common sense indicates that it is a chimera. Remember Iraq's WMDs? Common sense indicated that Iraq was no threat to us, and that the WMDs had either been destroyed or rendered irrelevant by age. What about the success of the Surge? Common sense indicates that it won't work, because the problems plaguing Iraq cannot be solved militarily. Common sense is often correct. The fact that Bush actively speaks against common sense in most every instance only underscores this notion.