No 9/11 wíth Gore as President?

[Merowinger]

Please don´t try to get political about this, I was just wondering wehter Bin Laden would have striked, when Al Gore would have become president?

Thank you.

[NapoleonXIV]

Probably not. I'm not being political, but Gore would likely have pushed through a bill sponsored by the Clinton admininstration aimed a drying up terrorist funds, which was being blocked by Phil Gramm.

Or maybe not, it is a hindsight thing and the bill had bipartisan opposition as well as support. It could just as easily been traded off for some no drilling in the Adirondacks thing or whatever.

Otherwise no, like it or not 9/11 was something which was seen coming, but only in the vaguest sense and certainly not anticipated to finally be as terrible as it was. Everything just came together in the wrong way. They even hit the worst buildings they could have. Hell, if they had hit the Empire State we might have seen 500 dead tops

[rewster]

Adirondack Oil?
Woohoo! My family could be sitting on black gold back home in upstate New York!

Er, I assume you meant Alaska?

Anyway, it's obviously impossible to predict, but if I could hazard a guess I say no, it doesn't happen, at least not at the time it did. I think the terrorists struck because they felt the timing was right. Whatever their reasoning, they chose to attack when they did and I believe there is a possibility that they might not have chosen to attack a different administration at the same time... (getting dangerously political here but...) perhaps they might have waited to see what Gore's foreign policy shaped up to be?

[Dave Bender]

Bin Laden launched several attacks against the U.S. in the 1990s. Why would he stop? Was he friends with the Gore family or something?

The big difference of a Gore presidency would be how the U.S. responded to the 9/11 attacks.

[Hyperion]

If it had been in the planning for a couple of years already, I don't see a change in who is president having much of an effect on whether or not it happens, or the timing. At the time Bush, or in TTL, Gore would have only been in office for a few months anyways.

Now I think the real question would be what Gore would do after 9/11, if he where president at the time.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

Now I think the real question would be what Gore would do after 9/11, if he where president at the time.

I know what Gore probably wouldn't do. He wouldn't go running off and invading Iraq.

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

I know what Gore probably wouldn't do. He wouldn't go running off and invading Iraq.

No, more likely he makes a naitonally televised speech in a dull monotone about the need to seek a diplomatic solution with Bin Laden

I know it's probably an impossibility with such a recent PoD, but could we try to avoid using this thread to chant out political agendas? I'd have to agree Gore won't go into Iraq as Bush did, I leave it up to the reader's judgement if that is a good or bad thing. I definately think the the Republicans would end up accusing him of not responding strongly enough to the attacks, though in fairness to political reality I doubt that he could do much to avoid Republican criticism, much as Bush will always be criticised by the Democrats.

I'd say the attack will very likely happen regardless of who wins the election, as either way Bin Laden will still regard the US as an enemy. After all, it's not like Bush really did anything to specifically incite Bin Laden's anger at him before the attacks, and the attacks had been years in the planning so I doubt the outcome of the election would cancel them. Still, butterflies could result in the details of the attack being different.

Who do the Republicans end up running in 2004? My guess would be that for a wartime candidate they'd probably want someone with good national security and military qualifications. If the GOP was run by me, I'd go for the deadly Powell/McCain ticket, which I think the Democrats would have a very hard time beating, and a retired general is a logical wartime presidential candidate after all.

[Akiyama]

How can you not get political about this.

At the risk, no, make that certainty, of being thought a nutcase, I believe certain people in the Bush administration knew 9/11 was going to happen and did whatever they could to help it succeed.

I think they did so from patriotic motives. In September 2000 an organisation called "Project for a New American Century" whose members included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney published a paper called "Rebuilding America's Defences" which identified the most dangerous threats to America in the 21st Century as coming from rogue states and terrorists armed with WMDs. They proposed that America should massively increase it's military spending, particularly on space-based anti-missile defences, and engage in pre-emptive attacks on rogue states and states harbouring terrorists. However, they believed that the American people would not support such a project unless there was (in the words of this document) "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbour".

The evidence shows that people who tried to warn the administration of 9/11 before it happened were ignored by people higher up, obstacles were placed in the way of the people who tried to prevent 9/11 from happening, and after 9/11 people who tried to investigate it were blocked or intimidated.

If you don't believe me, read the book The New Pearl Harbour by David Ray Griffin (web links to amazon.com and to the complete book online below). I guarantee you that however sceptical you are before you read this book, by the time you finish it you will feel very disturbed. David Ray Griffin is not a crank, everything he says in the book is taken from reliable sources. If anyone can find any mistakes in the book I would like to know, because I'd rather not believe that elements of the US government are complicit in the deaths of US citizens, but to me, now, it seems like the evidence points that way.

I bought the book because I was confused by the reported fact that the US air force took so long to respond to the hijacking of the planes and the attack on the Twin Towers, and that when they did respond they flew from the wrong air base, and too slowly to reach the hijacked planes. I was also confused by the discrepancies between the official report of the attack on the Pentagon (which says it was hit by a hijacked plane) and the photographic evidence (available on the Internet) which shows damage to the Pentagon that could not have been caused by an aeroplane, and which also fails to show any evidence of an aeroplane hitting the Pentagon i.e. no wreckage.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...59130?v=glance

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/da...rl-harbor.html

[Grimm Reaper]

Well, I presented my opinion some time back where the election of Al Gore in 2000 led clearly to 9/11, followed by a global apocalypse and a cult arising in the 30th Century dedicated to an obscure figure(Bush the Younger) who many believe might have prevented the early 21st Century cataclysm.

Alas, linguistic shifts were such that no one would ever prove capable of fully translating the few surviving speeches by him. Strange accent too.

Akiyama, sorry, but the man is crank if not a genuinely sick person with a vile agenda. From imaginary explosives, to claims the Pentagon was not hit by the third plane, to his absolute inability to comprehend where fighters were launched from, he has the same legitimacy as an author claiming the Royal Navy bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

[Derek Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

No, more likely he makes a naitonally televised speech in a dull monotone about the need to seek a diplomatic solution with Bin Laden .

This statement is absurd.

I wonder whether there would be a bigger fuss about the memo saying that Bin Ladan would attack the US than in OTL.

There is some chance that the September 11 atrocity would have been prevented by a more competenent President but probably it would not.

Of course Republicans would be MUCH less bi partisan than Democrats were in OTL.

There probably would be an invasion of Afganistan. The aftermath of that would probably be better handled than in OTL.

Gore would not invade Iraq.

Republicans would try to use 9/11 in the mid term elections and in 2004 election. I do not know whether they would succeed- I fear they would

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Akiyama

If you don't believe me, read the book The New Pearl Harbour by David Ray Griffin (web links to amazon.com and to the complete book online below). I guarantee you that however sceptical you are before you read this book, by the time you finish it you will feel very disturbed. David Ray Griffin is not a crank, everything he says in the book is taken from reliable sources. If anyone can find any mistakes in the book I would like to know, because I'd rather not believe that elements of the US government are complicit in the deaths of US citizens, but to me, now, it seems like the evidence points that way.

I bought the book because I was confused by the reported fact that the US air force took so long to respond to the hijacking of the planes and the attack on the Twin Towers, and that when they did respond they flew from the wrong air base, and too slowly to reach the hijacked planes. I was also confused by the discrepancies between the official report of the attack on the Pentagon (which says it was hit by a hijacked plane) and the photographic evidence (available on the Internet) which shows damage to the Pentagon that could not have been caused by an aeroplane, and which also fails to show any evidence of an aeroplane hitting the Pentagon i.e. no wreckage.

I'm a little confused because the last time I heard these arguments they came from a sensationalist French journalist who published them in early 2002. Not that he gained any respectability with them, but is this new to the US scene or am I just now hearing of the American author who does the same?

[Hyperion]

I think even if Gore won, the attack would likely happen, or the people who carried it out would make the attempt, but before hand and leading up to the event, I can't see how anything Gore could to would stop that attack specifically. Now after the attack is where a lot of changes are going to happen.

Gore would probably have plenty of support and justification to go into Afghanistan such as was done in OTL, but after that everything changes. The US initially relied on the locals when Bin Laden was supposedly stuck in Tora Bora. Barring warplanes and special ops teams, that battle was entirely local troops. Perhaps once the Taliban are put on the run, Gore will instantly send in several thousand soldiers and marines to do major ground operations as soon as November. Or perhaps he could limit US involvement on the ground solely to special ops teams.

I think Gore would probably not go into Iraq, or at least not in the way it was actually done in OTL. Even if the chances of getting a UN resolution to use force would fail, I think Gore would go ahead with trying to get one through the UN anyway, just to have such a document on record.

If Gore saw a need to invade Iraq and topple Saddam as Bush did, he would be better off skipping the WMD angle, and consentrating on any terrorists that operate out of Iraq, or have support within the country. I'm not suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but I consider the possibility of terrorists living and operating within Iraq in general to be a seperate issue from 9/11. I think their where people that could be considered terrorist or extremist types living and working in Iraq, but I don't see anything suggesting that those individuals where involved in 9/11.

If Gore wants a reason to go after Saddam, he should try the issue of Saddam and human rights violations, such as murdering Kurds, and the Muslims in the south, can't remember which those where. He could also talk about Iraqi forces firing on US and British warplanes patroling the UN established No-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.

On the other hand, if Gore ignores Iraq altogether, which he very well could, he might actually be more inclined to deal with North Korea instead.

If Gore sees a need to use military forces somehow after 9/11, there is also the possibility that he could consider going after a government, or group of individuals that Bush didn't even come close to. Perhaps Syria or some group in northern Africa or somewhere. Or perhaps he could send more troops to the Philippines.

If he sends troops to the Philippines, he will have to get permission from the Philippines government to deploy them and send them into action, but Bush actually sent a couple thousand marines there, and that seems like a forgotten event.

[Akiyama]

Gore has written and spoken about the Bush administration's actions. Reading between the lines, we might be able to get a good idea of what he would have done differently. The link is to a speech he made on September 23rd 2002 entitled "Iraq and the War on Terrorism".

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/arch...re-speech.html

[Torqumada]

Regarding the attack on the Pentagon. I have a couple of good friends, they are a husband and wife team both Cols in the Air Force, who just retired in the last year. They were both at the Pentagon, doing their time there. The wife was outside the building when the plane came down. She saw it happen and for me that is good enough. I like a good conspiracy theory as everyone else, but I have no doubts that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Now, the real question is, what did the government know and not know in regards to the attack.

Something I always want to ask someone who is a member of these committees that speak about deploying space based weapons to protect against terrorism. How is a space based laser designed to knock down ICBMs going to protect against some guy pulling up in front of a building and setting off a bomb?

Torqumada

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

No, more likely he makes a naitonally televised speech in a dull monotone about the need to seek a diplomatic solution with Bin Laden

I know it's probably an impossibility with such a recent PoD, but could we try to avoid using this thread to chant out political agendas? I'd have to agree Gore won't go into Iraq as Bush did, I leave it up to the reader's judgement if that is a good or bad thing. I definately think the the Republicans would end up accusing him of not responding strongly enough to the attacks, though in fairness to political reality I doubt that he could do much to avoid Republican criticism, much as Bush will always be criticised by the Democrats.

I'd say the attack will very likely happen regardless of who wins the election, as either way Bin Laden will still regard the US as an enemy. After all, it's not like Bush really did anything to specifically incite Bin Laden's anger at him before the attacks, and the attacks had been years in the planning so I doubt the outcome of the election would cancel them. Still, butterflies could result in the details of the attack being different.

Who do the Republicans end up running in 2004? My guess would be that for a wartime candidate they'd probably want someone with good national security and military qualifications. If the GOP was run by me, I'd go for the deadly Powell/McCain ticket, which I think the Democrats would have a very hard time beating, and a retired general is a logical wartime presidential candidate after all.

Actually, I think a very united GOP would run another Texan, Ron Paul, for President. I'd expect Gore to drop Lieberman. Beyond that, I agree with the aforementioned.

[Grimm Reaper]

One problem for President Gore would be North Korea.

How DOES he confront North Korea on the issue of nuclear weapons? To admit the problem exists is to admit the Clinton Administration not only failed to resolve the matter, but actually tried to push it down onto the next man in the White House.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

One problem for President Gore would be North Korea.

How DOES he confront North Korea on the issue of nuclear weapons? To admit the problem exists is to admit the Clinton Administration not only failed to resolve the matter, but actually tried to push it down onto the next man in the White House.

That is actually a very good point...

[Hansmeister]

9-11 would've happened regardless of who was in the WH, to believe anything else is tinfoil-hat shit.

The initial reaction by Gore would've most likely been very similar. If anything it would've been slower, since that is what the Pentagon brass preferred (in OTL Rummy badgered the brass to speed things up, it is doubtful Gore would've had as forceful a SecDef). After the fall of the Taliban things would've settled down, with the US going back on the defensive. Al Qaeda would simply reconstitute in Pakistan, Iran and Iraq as they were doing back in 2002. They would've probably laid low for a while planning another spectacular attack while we'd be lulled back into a false sense of security. A combination of the ACLU left and the Libertarian right would've probably over time weakened domestic security to the point where we were vulnerable again. After a few years Al Qaeda would strike again and everybody would wonder how we ended up dropping the ball.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Merowinger

Please don´t try to get political about this, I was just wondering wehter Bin Laden would have striked, when Al Gore would have become president?

Thank you.

Bin Laden and Al Queda have an agenda that has very little to do with Democrat/Republican politics. If the US pulled had pulled ALL their troops out of the Middle East and dropped support for Israel, they might have stopped. But that wouldn't have happened no matter which party was in power. Ergo, there would be 9/11.

[Rick Robinson]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

How DOES he confront North Korea on the issue of nuclear weapons? To admit the problem exists is to admit the Clinton Administration not only failed to resolve the matter, but actually tried to push it down onto the next man in the White House.

There was and is no acceptable "resolution," given the large size of North Korea's conventional forces, the vulnerability of Seoul to conventional artillery bombardment, and the fact that the CIA believes that North Korea removed enough plutonium from its reactor in 1989 to build 1-2 nukes. (Google the Nuclear Weapons FAQ, section 7.3.)

Nevertheless, in 1995 the North Koreans agreed to safeguards (e.g., remote cameras) that kept them from reprocessing rods containing more high-grade stuff, indicating that diplomatic pressure could constrain them. Not indefinitely (obviously!), but on a contingent basis.

Kim Jong Il might well have broken out of the 1995 safeguards anyway - the guy's motivations are, to say the least, opaque - but he may have been encouraged to do so by the fact that we were substantially tied down in Iraq, and our diplomatic influence reduced as a byproduct. Or he might have done it anyway.

Diplomatic pressure might have been successful again, as it was in 1994-1995, or it might not have been. Even if it wasn't, though, Gore wouldn't be in any tougher situation vis a vis North Korea than Bush is - the problem of what to do if diplomacy failed would be exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

Bin Laden and Al Queda have an agenda that has very little to do with Democrat/Republican politics.

True. But the degree of an administration's focus might have an impact on whether an attack succeeds or not. IF a Gore administration gave terrorism a higher priority pre-9/11 than Bush did, it's always possible that the attack might have been forestalled.

-- Rick