Understood and agreed. I thought exactly the same things last Tuesday. The death toll could have been vastly higher if the aircraft had hit lower on the tower and at the same time. Let's just be glad (if possible) that they didn't. A tatical error, perhaps, but their overall goal was accomplished. For me, a botched job implies that goals were not accomplished and the job was a failure as a result. They got what they wanted; many deaths, disruption of daily life, etc. And may those who were behind it be revisted with the same to the nth power.
The same can be said of the Pentagon. Yes, more deaths would have been the result of a different impact point. Gladly, that didn't happen. But the very symbology of successful crashing an aircraft into the symbol of American military might AND killing people leads me to say that, no, it was not a botched job either.
Interestingly, there is very good evidence that the point of impact at the Pentagon was Providential to say the least. The director of the renovation project was on C-SPAN last Saturday with a briefing which clearly showed that the plane managed to hit the only spot on the building which had been reinforced (on the inside) and had it hit anywhere but "wedge 1" the damage would have been much, much greater.
No may have noticed the big "slab" of building leaning in. That was the reinforced segment. He also pointed out that the only windows which were out were those actually physically hit by the plane. The rest of the so-called "blast-proof" windows stayed in place.
And, of course, the offices (for the most part) weren't yet occupied. That also held casualties down.
In the face of that great tragedy, it was a wonderous thing that the Arab monkeys 'botched' their worthless entry into Hell.