No, it’s not.
I’m pretty sure the Bush admin takes credit for killing many thousands of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan 2001-2009. Do you not count those?
Do high-value targets count double? triple? Would Obama have scored higher had they shot the plotters in the news this week instead of capturing them?
Dude, your OP asks for an explanation for data. You haven’t told us what data.
Cite that the Obama administration has been more effective at killing terrorists than the Bush administration was? I’d love to see the context, and what the definition of ‘terrorist’ is…and how the numbers were arrived at. By some folks count, Bush et al killed millions of Iraqis during and after the invasion. Some non-zero number of those would undoubtedly be counted as ‘terrorist’, so if you believe those numbers are true that alone would put his numbers higher, depending on ones definition of ‘terrorist’. If you mean through direct assassination, even then I’d say it’s going to depend on what definition of ‘terrorist’ you are using.
If you mean high value terrorists only, then even there I’d need to see some evidence, since I remember reading about this number 2 or 3 head of AQ-I being whacked in Iraq, or that high ranking figure of AQ-A being caputured in Afghanistan, etc etc, blah blah blah. So, you are going to have to do a bit more to demonstrate the validity of your assertion in your OP before you get any but the knee jerk answers you’ve already gotten in this thread.
-XT
Ok. Based on the data I’ve posted so far, Obama is way ahead in the “high value terrorists killed or captured per year” score. I’ll start with that. I know my data is incomplete- can you add to it? I could certainly be wrong.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Ok. Based on the data I’ve posted so far, Obama is way ahead in the “high value terrorists killed or captured per year” score. I’ll start with that
[/QUOTE]
Your data on Bush was simply a section from Wiki that wasn’t comprehensive:
IOW, they are just cherry picking the most juicy or recognized.
I’m sure I could dig up something, eventually, but it’s your OP and your assertion. I don’t believe that you’ve even demonstrated your stripped down assertion of ‘high value terrorists killed or captured per year’.
But let’s assume you have demonstrated that during the Obama administration the military has gotten more effective at killing high value terrorists than they have in the past (leaving aside that it might be a statistical anomaly, even assuming it’s true). Why might that be? Well, for one thing, the military and intelligence has been gaining experience, so that might be a factor. Also, with the shift in emphasis and the removal of a lot of our troops from front line combat in Iraq, that might have freed up resources that could be focused on simply hunting and killing high value terrorists. Also, there have been some changes in the Rules of Engagement, especially wrt combat drones and operations in Pakistan. Disruptions in the various terror groups chains of command might have made them even more vulnerable recently as people scramble to re-establish lines of communications and those chains of command, and adapt to those changes in our Rules of Engagement.
-XT
Comparing and contrasting an ABC news article with a Wikipedia page? 
My guess is that since 2001:
– We have steadily increased the number and quantity of intel sources, as well as learning better how to use them
– We’ve gained knowledge of who the upper people are, where to find them, and how to kill them
– As we’ve slowly worked up through the bottom layers, the higher-value guys have had to expose themselves more because they don’t have as many trusted intermediaries anymore
Given that the vast majority of CT work is done by career people, not political appointees, unless there are major policy changes (which there haven’t been), a change in administration has much less effect than you might suppose. Blaming or crediting Obama personally is foolish.
But again, we have no real basis for comparison. I know for certain that the FBI/CIA have metrics they use in assessing their work, but the details are classified.
Yeah, effort without results.
It is a simple question of competence.
You should add imprisonment to that question. If Bush imprisoned a thousand people, of which 800 were terrorists, and Obama assassinated 20 terrorists – well that’s 800 to 20.
See posts #15 and 18. 
It’s not just a matter of numbers either. Bush killed thousands of terrorists according to some definitions. But he didn’t get OBL. Weight the the terrorists, and Obama is clearly more effective. And he ices them, no torture games for neoCons to masturbate to.
Dunno, I’m pretty sure that a General with no soldiers is just an old man in a green suit.
It is a lot easier to recruit soldiers than generals. When playing chess, you don’t go after the pawns, after all. Obama has made taking high level jobs in al-Q an excellent way to let your wives cash in on widow benefits early.
Not to mention that he captured Osama’s computer and disks, which beats the hell out of torturing people you pick up on street corners.
True, but not necessarily meaningfull. Say that 1 in 10 people have delusions of grandeur, but only 1 in 100,000 are willing to go out and commit acts of terrorism. In a nation of 1 million people, you’ll only have (on average) 1 person who has both traits and can be your general. If you wanted to find a second one, you’re screwed. But there’s also only a pool of 10 people willing to work for him. You kill those 10 guys and the general is out of luck. Sure there’s a 10x greater chance of finding a new soldier, but that was true when he first started looking for soldiers, and now all those are dead. It will take a generation or two to grow them back.
In the case of the US military, they can offer higher salaries to make the number of people willing to serve grow. Worst case, they can start drafting from the general populace. A terrorist leader can do neither of those. He has as many people as he can find to start with, and he has to hope that he loses them at a slower rate than new generations grow up to offer new recruits.
If we can kill all the soldiers, hopefully by the time the next generation grows old enough to start engaging in acts of terrorism, the local political and economic situation will have been changed so that only 1 person in a million is willing to become a terrorist.
The way you go after a terrorist network is to start at the bottom and work your way to the top. Each arrest and interrogation gets you closer to the people at the top. The longer you do this the better information you have, the more refined your practices get. It is no suprise that the longer the war on terror gets the better the US gets at fighting it. Plus with more drone attacks it is harder to deny what has happened to a terrorist leader. If you arrest someone and interrogate it is best to keep that hidden as long as possible because you do not want the enemy to know. If you blow them up with a missile you would prefer that the enemy knows. Who the president is makes almost no difference to the people out on the front lines doing the actual policy. There has been almost no difference in policy between the two administrations except a preference for drone attacks in the Obama administration. The criticism of the Bush administrations policies has been exposed for the campaign rhetoric we conservatives always knew it was. Though I admit even I was suprised at how fast the liberals stopped pretending to care about human rights as soon as they were in power.
Don’t you mean “The Fixer”? 
Putting incompetent people in charge like Bush did and interfering with the work for political purposes like he did does have an effect on the investigation. Using torture also hurts any investigation. And so does being so incompetent or evil that many of those career people leave, which also happened under Bush.
At best, it would be more like “Bush imprisons 1000 people, 10 of whom are terrorists. Meanwhile his behavior incites 1000 more people into becoming terrorists.”
Liberals aren’t in power.
Don’t want to take anything out of context, but I’m only commenting on the bolded part.
My comment is that under Bush, we would ask Pakistan for permission to attack a target (terrorist) in Pakistan before we would do it (sovereignty/politeness and all that). That process, of tracking targets, locating, getting permission to take out by US, then permission by Pakistan, took time, and in lots of cases before we got the Pakistan “ok” the target was lost or was not in a position to be killed. So, under Bush (2008ish), we just started telling Pakistan simultaneously when we attacked the target (“We’re on our way to shoot X, at Y location”). That was being done towards the end of the Bush administration, and has continued throughout Obama’s administration.
So, I think both had a preference for drone attacks, but it was more feasible/easier to carry out those strikes by Obama, than under most of Bush’s terms.
Which is why Obama let 99% of them go free?
It’s probably a safe bet the OP didn’t mean terrorists randomly killed as part of a general massacre that had nothing to do with them. By the logic you are using the most effective anti-terrorism measure would be a global nuclear war.
No, he’s still imprisoning plenty of people; but that has nothing to do with terrorism and doesn’t help.
If all this be true, why haven’t we made better progress in the so-called “War on Drugs?”
The correct answers are “Obama is more willing to challenge Pakistan on terrorism issues,” and “Obama has greatly expanded the CIA drone program.” Bush never would have taken unilateral military action in Pakistan without consulting the Pakistani government.