1998: Bin Laden is out of the picture

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Jul 21, 2006

WI the US had killed or captured Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998? Killed works best after the African embassy bombings, since the authorization to take him out was given after the attacks.

fhaessig · Jul 21, 2006

Bush still attacks Iraq

The Mists Of Time · Jul 21, 2006

What would this do concerning Al-Quida and 9/11?

I'm pretty sure that if we had gotten Bin Laden in 1998 that 9/11 would never have happened.

What this scenario does to Al-Quida depends on who else we got along with Bin Laden. If we had gotten a number of his top people as well then Al-Quida would be much smaller and much weaker if it still existed at all. I don't think anyone else could have continued to lead Al-Quida the way Bin Laden has and with the same influence, strength, etc.

Another question is what this would have done to the Taliban in Afganistan in 1998. This might have also broken the Taliban along with Al-Quida.

Evil Opus · Jul 21, 2006

No 9/11, no War on Terror, possibly Kerry wins the presidency in 2004.

Berra · Jul 21, 2006

Bush would win over Kerry anyway. The ecomomy went well and Kerry even flip-flopped on not being Bush. (Ok the last coment was a joke.)

HueyLong · Jul 21, 2006

Actually, won't this be a victory for Clinton and Gore, and possibly win Gore in 2000?

Gladi · Jul 21, 2006

The Mists Of Time said:
What would this do concerning Al-Quida and 9/11?

I'm pretty sure that if we had gotten Bin Laden in 1998 that 9/11 would never have happened.

Bright day
I actually heard that it was Atta's idea and Bin Laden was only a backer. Somebody to who you pitch your ideas, not the person who masterminds whole op.

WhatIsAUserName · Jul 21, 2006

Gladi said:
Bright day
I actually heard that it was Atta's idea and Bin Laden was only a backer. Somebody to who you pitch your ideas, not the person who masterminds whole op.

Yeah, but if AQ collapses, then the terrorist accidents might not happen.

Gladi · Jul 21, 2006

WhatIsAUserName said:
Yeah, but if AQ collapses, then the terrorist accidents might not happen.

So there is no civil war in Algeria? No attacks on French? On Israeli? No massacre in Egypt? No 90's attack on WTO?

NapoleonXIV · Jul 21, 2006

Gladi said:
So there is no civil war in Algeria? No attacks on French? On Israeli? No massacre in Egypt? No 90's attack on WTO?

If bin Laden is captured in 1998 the conspirator's money drys up. No money, no conspriracy, at least not that far back.

I agree that Bush would still attack Iraq, but without 9/11 it will make him so unpopular that Hoover's ghost would get more votes in 2004

Evil Opus · Jul 21, 2006

HueyLong said:
Actually, won't this be a victory for Clinton and Gore, and possibly win Gore in 2000?

Doubt it. Bin Laden wasn't a major issue in the 2000 election-it might bump Gore up a few votes, but no more then that.

Gladi · Jul 21, 2006

NapoleonXIV said:
If bin Laden is captured in 1998 the conspirator's money drys up. No money, no conspriracy, at least not that far back.

I agree that Bush would still attack Iraq, but without 9/11 it will make him so unpopular that Hoover's ghost would get more votes in 2004

So they could not go anybody else who is in terrorism biz?

Derek Jackson · Jul 21, 2006

Evil Opus said:
Doubt it. Bin Laden wasn't a major issue in the 2000 election-it might bump Gore up a few votes, but no more then that.

Gore would only have needed to change about 1000 votes in 6 million in Florida.

Wendell · Jul 21, 2006

Gladi said:
Bright day
I actually heard that it was Atta's idea and Bin Laden was only a backer. Somebody to who you pitch your ideas, not the person who masterminds whole op.

So, does Atta shop his idea around?

Wendell · Jul 21, 2006

NapoleonXIV said:
If bin Laden is captured in 1998 the conspirator's money drys up. No money, no conspriracy, at least not that far back.

I agree that Bush would still attack Iraq, but without 9/11 it will make him so unpopular that Hoover's ghost would get more votes in 2004

Think about this a bit more. It won't happn at all without the September 11 attacks, as the Congress won't rubber-stamp it, and WMDs won't be such an urgent concern, except, perhaps with regard to the DPRK.

Wendell · Jul 21, 2006

Evil Opus said:
No 9/11, no War on Terror, possibly Kerry wins the presidency in 2004.

George Bush may not be renominated, opening a whole new can of worms. Kerry may not be the Democratic nominee regardless of whether or not the GOP backs Bush for a second term.

Evil Opus · Jul 21, 2006

Wendell said:
George Bush may not be renominated, opening a whole new can of worms. Kerry may not be the Democratic nominee regardless of whether or not the GOP backs Bush for a second term.

I'm pretty sure Bush is renominated by the Republicans(presidents have a very high re-nomination rate) but Kerry might have some more trouble.

Derek Jackson · Jul 22, 2006

Without September 11 Enron will be HUGE. The chicken hawk party will not be able to attack Democrats on 'patriotism'. Democrats win both Houses easily in 02.

I think that it would be well worth while for McCain to seek the Republican nomination.

I also think that Hilary might go after the Democrat nomination against a Republican party which will look like losers in 04

Gladi · Jul 22, 2006

Wendell said:
So, does Atta shop his idea around?

Good morning
That is what I was trying to talk about.

Osama Bin Laden is not th dragon in the dark cave. He is one snake in snake nest, very venomous but hardly a singular appearence.

fhaessig · Jul 22, 2006

Wendell said:
Think about this a bit more. It won't happn at all without the September 11 attacks, as the Congress won't rubber-stamp it, and WMDs won't be such an urgent concern, except, perhaps with regard to the DPRK.

He'll just find another excuse. ABout cobgress, you may be right or not, depending on the excuse and propag... excuse me press campaign supporting the issue.