No 911: whither/wither Bush?

Mifletz

Banned
Bush withers without 911

911, the war against terror, and the attack on Iraq have dominated the Bush presidency. He seems to have been up to the job, so far. What would he, his presidency and the US be like now in the last months of his (first?) term without 911? Assuming no race riots (like occurred during his father's term), a reasonable economy, & everything basically placid. What would he have focussed his energies on & used his administrations efforts on during the last 3 years, if anything? Or would he have been like Reagan ie masterly inactivity?
 
Last edited:
the economy was likely to decline 9/11 or not, and no matter who was president. However, without 9/11, it would have been a slower decline. The airlines were in trouble before 9/11, and no attack would have seen the decline continue. Bush came into office with a big agenda on education, and he never really got a chance to do much with it. He likely would have tussled with Congress on some of his policies. The big question was if he still would have found an excuse to go to war with Iraq; apparently, it was something he was considering before 9/11. Without the attack, though, it would have been even more unpopular than in OTL....
 
Absent September 11 Enron would have been a bigger story. I think that GW Bush would NOT have won a Congressional vote on attacking Iraq without that factor
 
GW Bush came into office as a minority president elected to the presidency in historically unique - although completely legitimate - circumstances. Instead of reaching out to the Demcrats (and 50% of the US people) by recognizing these circumstances and trying to be the "uniter" he claimed to be, he agressively promoted and pushed the right wing agenda of the Republican party as if he had won a Reagan-like mandate.

I think 9/11 was a piece of good luck dumped in his lap which very well could have saved his presidency (and I suppose it might still). I agree with Mifletz that, rhetorically and policy-wise, he was certainly up to the job, but later decisions (the continued insistence on tax reduction, the Iraq diversion, and now even the silly Gay marriage issue) have tended to reemphasize that GW is a front for the extreme right-wing of the Republican party. If he were someone as charismatic and gifted as Reagan, he would almost certainly get away with this. But he's tongue-tied GW and he's almost back to where he started. An unpopular minority president.

As a Republican, I'm beginning to wonder if the best thing for moderate conservatives like me is for Kerry to win and the country get saddled by 8-years of liberal Democratic mis-government and diviseness (and who knows, Kerry might actually be a good president). Maybe like the DLC, we could then finaly convince the Republican party to shift to the center and elect a "Republican Bill Clinton" (minus Lewinsky and the cigars of course) who can honestly appeal to independents and some liberals, but remain basically true to the core Eisenhower Republican agenda (strong military and willingness to use it in US national interests, fiscal responsibility, a less activist court system, and less federal intrusion in state and local issues), while being willing to compromise to mantain at least some national consensus on the biggies (like being willing to levy adequate taxes to pay for needed military and civilian welfare and infrastructure programs)
 
zoomar> that's something I've been wondering myself, although I'm not a Republican. As a solid moderate, I find myself having more in common with moderate republicans than with the liberal wing of my own party. From everything I've read, the moderate republicans are getting fed up with the undue influence of the conservative wing. I've wondered if the long term trend in this country is for the formation of three parties: liberal, conservative, and a huge moderate party. I'd certainly be happy to join the last one....
 
I agree as well. I come from a big, conservative, southern family. Im the sole democrat. Im called the "Liberal" just because I believe in common sense. Frankly I think that Bush's Dad could have done a better job in this situation. I think people really underestimate the elder Bush. He lost '92 because of his moderate tendencies.
 
David Howery said:
zoomar> that's something I've been wondering myself, although I'm not a Republican. As a solid moderate, I find myself having more in common with moderate republicans than with the liberal wing of my own party. From everything I've read, the moderate republicans are getting fed up with the undue influence of the conservative wing. I've wondered if the long term trend in this country is for the formation of three parties: liberal, conservative, and a huge moderate party. I'd certainly be happy to join the last one....

Me too.
Although the formation of a moderate 3rd party sounds odd. Most US 3rd parties represent the far extremes of craziness like the Greens and American Independents.
 
Justin Green said:
I agree as well. I come from a big, conservative, southern family. Im the sole democrat. Im called the "Liberal" just because I believe in common sense. Frankly I think that Bush's Dad could have done a better job in this situation. I think people really underestimate the elder Bush. He lost '92 because of his moderate tendencies.

No, he lost because he was stabbed in the back by the Democratic party for being a statesman and agreeing to necessary tax hikes even though he had promised "no new taxes". By using his very willingness to compromise for the good of the country against him in the election the Clinton democrats showed their true colors. Bush the Dad was my kind of Republican and the Democrats shafted him. Serves'em right they ended up with Bush the son later.
 
Come on. The democrats did shaft Bush, but thats nothing compared to Perot stealing all those votes. If GH Bush had had most of Perot vote he would have won with a majority of at least 5 or 6 million. The ultra conservatives screwed Bush the elder the election. The Dems desearve partial blame, but Perot delivered the coup de grace.
 
Justin Green said:
Come on. The democrats did shaft Bush, but thats nothing compared to Perot stealing all those votes. If GH Bush had had most of Perot vote he would have won with a majority of at least 5 or 6 million. The ultra conservatives screwed Bush the elder the election. The Dems desearve partial blame, but Perot delivered the coup de grace.

You are right, of course. Without the votes Perot took, we'd never have had Lewinsky jokes. But, I'm not sure it was necessarily the "ultra conservatives" who voted to Perot. Perot also got alot of moderate working-class voters who had been Reagan/Bush voters in 1980-1988.
 
Well, without 9/11, relations with China might be a little less cozy. I dimly recall a giant piss-up involving a shot-down American spyplane and a lot of complaining about the Chinese stripping it down. 9/11 probably pushed whatever problems Bush had with China off the back burner entirely and onto the floor.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Alasdair Czyrnyj said:
Well, without 9/11, relations with China might be a little less cozy. I dimly recall a giant piss-up involving a shot-down American spyplane and a lot of complaining about the Chinese stripping it down. 9/11 probably pushed whatever problems Bush had with China off the back burner entirely and onto the floor.
I don't know... Bush's main role in the Oval Office has been to represent American business interests to the exclusion of everything else - security, the environment, the domestic economy, etc. Appeasing China, as he did in that instance, is very much in the interests of American business. The Chinese were clearly in the wrong (and here I agree, oddly enough, Donald Rumsfeld, who is clearly chomping at the bit for a confrontation with the Chinese) and yet Bush apologized profusely and later visited China, decked out in a luridly colored traditional silk Chinese outfit (which he also wore to the economic summit in Bangkok, embarrassingly enough). He wouldn't have looked like more of a stooge if he had shown up in a Mao suit.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Bush White House would always make sure that the US has a cosy relationship with the People's Republic of China.
 
Hi there. I am new to the boards.

When Bush was elected in 2000, I told all of my friends that we would be back in Iraq. 9/11 gave him that reason. The economy in 2001 was already on the down slide. My wife lost her job in March of 2001 and she was working in manufacturing. Technology was also taking a big hit. Nothing Bush or his administration could have done about it. I think the recovery would go the same that it is. However, I think the problems the government is having with budget deficits would be much less, since there wouldn't be the increase in defense spending that we are seeing or for homeland security. It wouldn't be as much of a political issue.

Something that might have happened if 9/11 hadn't happened:

America continues on in its naivity and the terrorists are able to get something worse into this country. Instead of The Twin Towers being hit by a pair of jets, NYC disappears in a mushroom cloud. There are over 200 missing Soviet Union "briefcase" bombs. There are people in the US manufacturing high explosives and chemical weapons and selling them outisde of the US. There are nerve agents and hemorragic agents that no one can account for within the US. We were lucky that we got off as lightly as we did.

What about a slightly different 9/11:

What if the time table for the terrorists was a little different and that plane that crashed in PA made it to DC and managed to strike its target (either the White House or the Capitol building) with it possible maximum effects?

Torqumada
 
Top