11. September attacks 1 year sooner

so 11. september attacks happen 1 year sooner, during US presidential election campaign. There is no way Clinton can avoid being blamed fully for it as it was planned and executed during his term. Gore looses without any vote count controversy.

Effects, thoughts?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
so 11. september attacks happen 1 year sooner, during US presidential election campaign. There is no way Clinton can avoid being blamed fully for it as it was planned and executed during his term. Gore looses without any vote count controversy.

Effects, thoughts?

Such events also tend to have a "rally-round-the-flag" effect, so depending on circumstances, it might have actually helped Gore.
 
Such an event would detract completely from Ralph Nader's Green Party, throwing his voters into the Gore camp.

In OTL, Bush's support soared after 9/11, so the blame factor would not set in. Just as he did after the OKC bombing in 1995, Clinton would make a well received speech.

Gore, as VP, would wield authority he did not have in 2001, so he may have stood a better chance of winning. Unlike Bush, Gore could open speeches with lines like "When I was in the army...."
 
I'm gonna have to agree with everyone else, I think that Clinton would have been able to capitalize on the attack, which consequently would have helped Gore and his bid.
 
I'm gonna have to agree with everyone else, I think that Clinton would have been able to capitalize on the attack, which consequently would have helped Gore and his bid.

But wouldn't he be blamed for being sleep at the switch? You had WTC1, Kenya/Tanzania bombings ad so on, all commited by Al Qaida and now this. Yet Cinton did nothing. Bush could say "Well, I was in office or less than a year so what could I possibly do to prevent it?". Clinton couldn't and Gore would be blamed for being VP while attacks were planned and executed.
 
But wouldn't he be blamed for being sleep at the switch? You had WTC1, Kenya/Tanzania bombings ad so on, all commited by Al Qaida and now this. Yet Cinton did nothing. Bush could say "Well, I was in office or less than a year so what could I possibly do to prevent it?". Clinton couldn't and Gore would be blamed for being VP while attacks were planned and executed.
... to which they could reply with "our intelligence advisers present us with multiple possible threats all the time. We can't deal with them all... and we're sorry. What do you want us to do, lock up everyone who looks Middle Eastern?"
or along those lines. Sure, it wouldn't be popular, but it would be honest.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But wouldn't he be blamed for being sleep at the switch? You had WTC1, Kenya/Tanzania bombings ad so on, all commited by Al Qaida and now this. Yet Clinton did nothing.

Dude, you're talking about Mr. Teflon himself. The people who would suffer politically would be the Republicans if they tried to blame him for it, thereby looking as if they are taking a horrible tragedy and trying to make political hay out of it.
 
I think the blame factor took a while to kick in even in OTL, and here Clinton would have an active role. I think he would likely react faster than Bush did OTL but I'm not sure what he would have done.

This could also affect the Sydney Olympic Games several days later though it would mostly be in the form of memorials at the event. Also Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount several weeks after that event, is that going to go ahead still, and would the reaction of Palestinians still lead to a second Intifadah? How would the events in Israel be seen in the US in the wake of a September 11 attack?

Butterflies likely mean the USS Cole isn't attacked or the attack is thwarted. Though a successful attack there would likely inflame the US public even further.

I agree that a Gore victory is likely in this case, particularly if Clinton acts decisively in the period between the attacks and the election.
 
It's absurd to say that this would have helped Bush. This would surely have helped Gore.

The blame factor didn't kick in historically until, well, years after the actual attack. Nobody between 9/11 and the end of the year was throwing blame about - nobody serious, anyway. It was handled as what it was - a national tragedy. People 'rallied round the flag.'

That said, national security - and the idea that you need someone who was experienced, foreign policy-savvy, etc, would dominate the election. I can't possibly imagine that would benefit a candidate with absolutely no foreign or national security experience, which is what Bush was in 2000. Christ, he only just won as a sitting President in wartime in 2004.

Remember, you only have to throw a few votes in a few states for Gore to win. In this scenario he'd almost certainly win Florida, and, depending on what happens to Nader's vote, possibly New Hampshire as well.

Does anyone have any polls for how the candidates were percieved on the issues in 2000?
 
Last edited:

Sandman396

Banned
I have to say that I think that this thread is in the wrong forum.
To have 911 attacks successfully carried out a year earlier requires an exceptionally large contingency of ASBs.
 
I have to say that I think that this thread is in the wrong forum.
To have 911 attacks successfully carried out a year earlier requires an exceptionally large contingency of ASBs.


For Bin Laden or another terrorist to organize the attacks a year earlier requires no magic or change of the laws of physics, so the subject is not ASB.

But I thought of another ramification of an earlier attack. Flight 77 was crashed in Pennsylvania because passengers communicated with cell phones to relatives. In 2000 and 2001, cell phone companies were still expanding and some rural areas were getting their first service. Suppose the passengers a year earlier did not have accounts compatible with the towers in PA or suppose some of the towers were not yet in operation. Then, flight 77 might make it to Washington and hit the capitol building.

As for the final weeks of the political campaign, Clinton and Gore can talk about how they are mobilizing the US military for an attack on Afghanistan. You can be sure they will move troops by the end of October. Bush can only offer help from the Texas National Guard.
 
Last edited:
Well Clinton, and then Gore in the Oval Office, would have it that there would not be as much anti-Muslim discrimination that we see today.
 
Well Clinton, and then Gore in the Oval Office, would have it that there would not be as much anti-Muslim discrimination that we see today.

A good challenge here. Less fundamentalist religious influence in the white house and US government, more cooperation with moderate Islamics who do not support terror. Can we foster more moderate Islamic support against Al-Qaeda?
 

Sandman396

Banned
For Bin Laden or another terrorist to organize the attacks a year earlier requires no magic or change of the laws of physics, so the subject is not ASB.

You are quite correct but that was not the ASBishness of this idea.
For the Clinton Administration to fail to act on the intelligence that would be available before the attack is what requires the intervention of the ASBs.
 
An attack three months ahead of the election would most likely seal win for Gore. In late 2000 it was already widely accepted that Bush was not an especially bright and articulate guy. He bungled an interview in which he couldn't name the president of Pakistan and showed lack of depth on a range of international issues. In short people had an estimate of his abilities similar to what they have of Sarah Palin today, except Bush was prone to misspeak.

What Bush had going for him then was the relatively strong state of America at the time. Most people felt things would be smooth sailing ahead and it didn't take an intellectual or experienced hand to run the country. The catch phrase was "character matters". People wanted a break from Clinton era scandals, especially the Christian Right.

Thus a massive terrorist attack would change the debate from character issues to experience, readiness issues. Though Gore would inherit some blame for Clinton's failure to prevent the attack, in the short term the nation would be focused on revenge, not assigning blame.

However if this happened a few months earlier during the Republican primary I would expect someone other than Bush to be nominated, perhaps McCain, or a former general (Powell?). Gore would probably have been beaten soundly.


Bush's fails interview:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/
 
Top