9/11 never happens

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

POD: The hijackers die in a car crash.

September 11, 2001: Comes and goes like any other day.

November 12, 2001: The nation is shocked by the deadliest aviation disaster since 1979 when American flight 587 crashes in New York killing 265 people and one dog.

December 2, 2001: Enron files for bankruptcy, the resulting scandal surrounding the company and its founder Kenneth Lay (close friend of President Bush) dominates news headlines and badly damages the Presidents approval ratings.

December 22, 2001: Without the increased vigilance and security that followed 9/11, Richard Reid successfully detonates his shoe bomb aboard American Airlines flight 63, killing 197 people. President Bush orders an investigation into the tragedy, it's quickly revealed that Reid spent 1999-2000 in terrorist training camps in taliban- controlled Afghanistan. President Bush, concerned with his falling numbers, consults Cheney and Rumsfeld who tell him that a quick and victorious war against the taliban would shore up his failing administration. Airport security is tightened and surveillance powers increased with new legislation

January 29, 2002: In his state of the union address, President Bush makes his case for the invasion of Afghanistan, arguing that the taliban is a fundamental threat to freedom and peace and that the establishment of a democratic Afghanistan would serve as a role model for the middle east. Congress authorizes military action shortly thereafter.

February 5, 2002: Colin Powell makes his case to the United Nations, claiming the Taliban is harboring terrorists and needs to be overthrown. The UN is unconvinced of Afghani government involvement in the downing of Flight 63, arguing that Reid and his co-consiprators acted mostly independently. The security council refuses to authorize an invasion before a thorough investigation can be completed. Bush fearing his causus belli will slip away decides to invade anyway, with the help of Britain.

February 14, 2002: The World Trade Center organizes its fifth annual wedding marathon as planned, without incident.

March 1, 2002: "Operation Afghani Freedom" is launched, quickly overthrowing the Taliban regime. Bush's approval ratings spike to 65%, but it turns out the Bush administration did not have a well thought out plan for what was to happen next so Afghanistan quickly succumbs to violence and the new democratic government is unable to establish control over the country. More troops are sent to fight the insurgency.

2002-2003: Casualties mount in Afghanistan yet democracy only seems further and further away. Americans are begging to grow tired of the war and doubt if it was necessary. Taliban leaders have managed to evade capture. Bush's approval ratings drop below 50%. A troop surge temporarily stabilises the situation.

January 2003: Seing an opportunity for revenge, Al Gore announces his candidacy in the presidential election of 2004. He selects New York senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

February 26, 2003: President Bush attends a memorial ceremony at the World Trade Center on the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack there that killed 6 people .

November 2004: Americans want to return to the Clinton years and Gore wins the presidency with a comfortable margin.

2005: President Gore is sworn in and immediately begins withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, which only makes the situation there worse forcing him to partly reverse course angering both left and right. Gores climate activism makes him introduce a deeply unpopular carbon tax and a ban on fracking. Hurricane Katrina and the failed response causes his approval ratings to fall further.

November 2006: Republican red wave, 233R to 202D.

2007-2008: The great recession hits, Gore quickly moves to bail out the auto industry which proves popular but the poor economy makes his defeat in november look all but certain. Ron Paul, an isolationist libertarian republican running on a platform of Change and Hope, unexpectedly wins the republican primary.

thoughts?

 

[Mark E.]

Gore replaces Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor on the SCOTUS. Stevens and Souter likely retire while Gore is president, changing the direction of the court. If Ron Paul becomes president in 2009, expect a blue wave in 2010. The economy will likely have fallen into a second Great Depression, with GM and Chrysler failing and Ford in trouble. Banks will fail right and left, taxing the Federal Reserve. Hillary might run in 2012 with Obama as VP.

This thread looks like it will move to current politics so I will back off. The subject really belongs in political chat.

 

[Thisisnotausername]

This thread looks like it will move to current politics so I will back off. The subject really belongs in political chat.

Not really. 9/11 happened nearly twenty years ago, and OP's suggested timeline only goes up to the '08 election, which was twelve years ago. These politics haven't been current in quite some time.

POD: The hijackers die in a car crash.

Must've been a hell of a crash to kill all 19 of them.

December 22, 2001: Without the increased vigilance and security that followed 9/11, Richard Reid successfully detonates his shoe bomb aboard American Airlines flight 63, killing 197 people.

I don't know how much that vigilance really accounted for Reid being foiled, especially given that the OTL security measures didn't keep him from boarding the plane in the first place and it was only his suspicious behavior on the plane that got him caught. Even if it went through, though, I'm skeptical it would get anything even remotely at the scale of the OTL response to 9/11--Reid's attack would have killed less than a tenth as many people and would have had less than 1% the number of casualties, and certainly wouldn't have had anything like the psychological impact of the destruction of one of NYC's most prominent landmarks by foreign terrorists. It would still be a national tragedy, of course, but at the scale of Oklahoma City (to which it would have a similar death toll)--devastating, but not something that would affect the country in the same way as 9/11, and something it would be much more difficult to justify getting into a war about, at least one on the scale of the OTL War in Afghanistan.

January 2004: Seing an opportunity for revenge, Al Gore announces his candidacy in the presidential election of 2004. He selects New York senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

This is a ridiculously late date for him to get into the race--the 2004 Iowa caucuses were on January 19th and New Hampshire had its primary on the 27th. None of the OTL candidates announced their candidacy any later than September 2003.

Ron Paul, an isolationist libertarian republican running on a platform of Change and Hope, unexpectedly wins the republican primary.

How? He didn't get anywhere close to doing so IOTL.

 

[Mark E.]

The key POD is no 9/11 attack. The mechanism is to kill some of the key planners, maybe not all 19, but enough to raise red flags to get the FBI to foil the plan. So 9/11 does not happen. Bush does not get the popularity boost he did in OTL but he still invades Afghanistan. He loses popularity so the Democrat is favored in 2004. Whether it's Gore or Kerry doesn't matter. A Democratic winner would replace two SCOTUS justices, maybe four is Stevens and Souter retire a few years earlier. The key here is that the court is drastically changed. In 2008, the economic crisis will guarantee a party change in the white house, whether it Paul, Romney or McCain. Ron Paul would create another Great Depression in 2009-2010. Romney or McCain would give a rather lethargic version of TARP/stimulus. A GOP victory in 2008 changes the course of the following decade.

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

I don't know how much that vigilance really accounted for Reid being foiled, especially given that the OTL security measures didn't keep him from boarding the plane in the first place and it was only his suspicious behavior on the plane that got him caught. Even if it went through, though, I'm skeptical it would get anything even remotely at the scale of the OTL response to 9/11--Reid's attack would have killed less than a tenth as many people and would have had less than 1% the number of casualties, and certainly wouldn't have had anything like the psychological impact of the destruction of one of NYC's most prominent landmarks by foreign terrorists. It would still be a national tragedy, of course, but at the scale of Oklahoma City (to which it would have a similar death toll)--devastating, but not something that would affect the country in the same way as 9/11, and something it would be much more difficult to justify getting into a war about, at least one on the scale of the OTL War in Afghanistan.

Considering he very nearly succeeded in OTL I think it's very likely he would've in a TL where none of the passengers had terrorism on their minds.

Timothy McVeigh was an American, whereas in this case there are clear connections to Taliban Afghanistan which had been a thorn in the side of America for years. Even Clinton bombed Afghanistan in1998 after the embassy bombings, that evidently didn't work and something has to be done so I don't see an alternative to an invasion. Especially with Bush & co in office.

This is a ridiculously late date for him to get into the race--the 2004 Iowa caucuses were on January 19th and New Hampshire had its primary on the 27th. None of the OTL candidates announced their candidacy any later than September 2003.

Oops I meant january 2003

How? He didn't get anywhere close to doing so IOTL.

In this tl he's a leading figure of the Tea Party movement against the unpopular Gore, an anti-establishment figure like Obama in otl. After the failure of Bush's compassionate conservatism I think it's possible that a liberterian could win the primary.

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

The key POD is no 9/11 attack. The mechanism is to kill some of the key planners, maybe not all 19, but enough to raise red flags to get the FBI to foil the plan. So 9/11 does not happen. Bush does not get the popularity boost he did in OTL but he still invades Afghanistan. He loses popularity so the Democrat is favored in 2004. Whether it's Gore or Kerry doesn't matter. A Democratic winner would replace two SCOTUS justices, maybe four is Stevens and Souter retire a few years earlier. The key here is that the court is drastically changed. In 2008, the economic crisis will guarantee a party change in the white house, whether it Paul, Romney or McCain. Ron Paul would create another Great Depression in 2009-2010. Romney or McCain would give a rather lethargic version of TARP/stimulus. A GOP victory in 2008 changes the course of the following decade.

Do you think the GOP could win in 2012? If not then that's three one term presidents in a row

 

[Whanztastic]

Bush’s domestic agenda is radically different without 9/11. Richard Reid didn’t get caught with heightened security, was just really bad at terrorism. Probably would still be after 9/11. But Bush probably has a much stronger domestic change agenda for his compassionate conservatism agenda. Without national security being at an 11, immigration reform seems more likely with the Republican caucus. No tax cuts to the same level or people means the federal budget is in a much different place and the federal reserve will also be in a different place. Personnel is policy and Ben Bernanke probably isn’t in charge of the Fed starting 2006.

Foreign policy obviously is, but the difference in wars means oil prices have different patterns, economic development is different.

The economic history is wildly different without 9/11. The economy doesn’t crater in the aftermath. Is their a prolonged malaise as the corporate scandals rock investors and regulators? Without the shock recession of 9/11, does the bubble expand more quickly, popping in 2005-2006? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already in trouble far earlier than 2008. Assuming zero changes to the timeline of the Great Recession, or the scope of it, seems unlikely.

 

[Mark E.]

Do you think the GOP could win in 2012? If not then that's three one term presidents in a row

Romney might have been sufficiently Keynesian that he would adapt to a Democratic congress in 2011 and win in 2012. I remember after the election of 1976 there was talk that almost all presidents will be one-term because the economy makes the job so difficult that nobody can earn the chance for re-election. That scenario can happen as time moves on.

 

[bsmart]

Remember what the big news story was in August 2001. It was all about the Taliban destroying historic monuments. The Giant Stone Buddas were seen all over the news exploding as well as other non Islamic religious sites in Afghanistan. there was talk about 'The International community should DO SOMETHING' . I remember some talking heads saying we should go in and stop the destruction. There was talk at the U.N. but 9-11 overtook everything.

 

[RanulfC]

The problem is the Bush administration had no interest in Afghanistan in the first place or the Taliban. 9/11 provided an incentive but as soon as possible they pivoted to the REAL target which was Iraq and Saddam. Keep in mind that 90% of the cabinet and Administration had supported a Clinton era White Paper from a conservative think-tank that had concluded that turning Iraq into a "America favorable Democracy" would miraculously stabilize the Middle-East and force all the ant-US governments, (the Taliban was specifically mentioned) to be over-thrown.

Reid will be tied to Iraq by the Administration and they will push for war with Iraq rather than Afghanistan. (That's even assuming the bomb even went off and didn't just set his foot on fire) Without the suppression of opposition that 9/11 allowed it's not likely Bush and company can rally enough support to go to war with anyone really, the support even in the general public just wasn't there.

Randy

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

The problem is the Bush administration had no interest in Afghanistan in the first place or the Taliban. 9/11 provided an incentive but as soon as possible they pivoted to the REAL target which was Iraq and Saddam. Keep in mind that 90% of the cabinet and Administration had supported a Clinton era White Paper from a conservative think-tank that had concluded that turning Iraq into a "America favorable Democracy" would miraculously stabilize the Middle-East and force all the ant-US governments, (the Taliban was specifically mentioned) to be over-thrown.

Reid will be tied to Iraq by the Administration and they will push for war with Iraq rather than Afghanistan. (That's even assuming the bomb even went off and didn't just set his foot on fire) Without the suppression of opposition that 9/11 allowed it's not likely Bush and company can rally enough support to go to war with anyone really, the support even in the general public just wasn't there.

Randy

I mean they really don't have a choice but to invade. 197 people are dead and the terrorist can be linked to Afghanistan. The Taliban is a problem that can't be ignored any longer. Even Clinton had plans to invade after the attack on the USS Cole. I don't see how Reid could possibly be tied to Iraq without outright lies, I think Bush would be dissuaded from trying to invade Iraq bc of the unpopularity of his Afghanistan war but it's possible that he could try I guess.

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

Remember what the big news story was in August 2001. It was all about the Taliban destroying historic monuments. The Giant Stone Buddas were seen all over the news exploding as well as other non Islamic religious sites in Afghanistan. there was talk about 'The International community should DO SOMETHING' . I remember some talking heads saying we should go in and stop the destruction. There was talk at the U.N. but 9-11 overtook everything.

Yeah I am convinced that the US cannot tolerate the Taliban regime for any longer than it did.

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

Bush’s domestic agenda is radically different without 9/11. Richard Reid didn’t get caught with heightened security, was just really bad at terrorism. Probably would still be after 9/11. But Bush probably has a much stronger domestic change agenda for his compassionate conservatism agenda. Without national security being at an 11, immigration reform seems more likely with the Republican caucus. No tax cuts to the same level or people means the federal budget is in a much different place and the federal reserve will also be in a different place. Personnel is policy and Ben Bernanke probably isn’t in charge of the Fed starting 2006.

Foreign policy obviously is, but the difference in wars means oil prices have different patterns, economic development is different.

The economic history is wildly different without 9/11. The economy doesn’t crater in the aftermath. Is their a prolonged malaise as the corporate scandals rock investors and regulators? Without the shock recession of 9/11, does the bubble expand more quickly, popping in 2005-2006? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already in trouble far earlier than 2008. Assuming zero changes to the timeline of the Great Recession, or the scope of it, seems unlikely.

The passengers managed to subdue him because he aroused suspicion because of his Middle Eastern appearance and strange behaviour, in a no 9/11 scenario people wouldn't be nearly as vigilant. He'd be able to set it off.

The economy was in recession since the dot com crash in 2000, without the shock of 9/11 it would fare better but then again the Enron scandal gets much more attention in this TL which probably affects things somewhat.

I don't see why Bush would cut taxes less than otl, after all he has less defence spending to worry about in this TL so I'd imagine he'd cut taxes even more.

 

[RanulfC]

I mean they really don't have a choice but to invade. 197 people are dead and the terrorist can be linked to Afghanistan. The Taliban is a problem that can't be ignored any longer. Even Clinton had plans to invade after the attack on the USS Cole. I don't see how Reid could possibly be tied to Iraq without outright lies, I think Bush would be dissuaded from trying to invade Iraq bc of the unpopularity of his Afghanistan war but it's possible that he could try I guess.

Yeah I am convinced that the US cannot tolerate the Taliban regime for any longer than it did.

Specifically BECAUSE the Congressional Republican's had actively blocked any Clinton "response" is why they would (and did) actively support a US invasion of Iraq. The US government could and would have continued to ignore the Taliban because Afghanistan didn't "matter" to them, only Iraq was important. Are you seriously going to try and say that Bush-et-al would NOT make an outright lie they were aware could not be adequately fact-checked any time soon? Simply say the group that Reid was trained with is supported by Hussein and Iraq and keep screaming it till the cows come home. At this point in time there is enough associated media muscle to subsume any actual 'facts' within that narrative (remember how Iraq was "positively tied" to 9/11 before the invasion?) and the Republican controlled Congress is going to support the effort. Granted you probably won't have ANY international support for the effort, (though you might buy of some with a vague promise to 'take-care' of the Taliban at a later date) but you can likely strong-arm the British at least into participating.

OTL Bush was able to invade Afghanistan AND Iraq because of 9/11, here he'd have to make a choice and he's got zero interest in Afghanistan or the Taliban so the choice is rather simple and straight-forward. Iraq was the focus and was seen as the key to the Middle East by all the top officials and it was always going to be their focus no matter what.

Randy

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

Specifically BECAUSE the Congressional Republican's had actively blocked any Clinton "response" is why they would (and did) actively support a US invasion of Iraq. The US government could and would have continued to ignore the Taliban because Afghanistan didn't "matter" to them, only Iraq was important. Are you seriously going to try and say that Bush-et-al would NOT make an outright lie they were aware could not be adequately fact-checked any time soon? Simply say the group that Reid was trained with is supported by Hussein and Iraq and keep screaming it till the cows come home. At this point in time there is enough associated media muscle to subsume any actual 'facts' within that narrative (remember how Iraq was "positively tied" to 9/11 before the invasion?) and the Republican controlled Congress is going to support the effort. Granted you probably won't have ANY international support for the effort, (though you might buy of some with a vague promise to 'take-care' of the Taliban at a later date) but you can likely strong-arm the British at least into participating.

OTL Bush was able to invade Afghanistan AND Iraq because of 9/11, here he'd have to make a choice and he's got zero interest in Afghanistan or the Taliban so the choice is rather simple and straight-forward. Iraq was the focus and was seen as the key to the Middle East by all the top officials and it was always going to be their focus no matter what.

Randy

In this tl terrorists connected to the Taliban have killed 224 in 1998, 17 American sailors in 2000 and now 197 civillians in 2001. Bush has no choice but to invade. Maybe he'll try to invade Iraq later but I doubt that he'd be able to drum up support.

 

[Resurgam]

POD: The hijackers die in a car crash.

...all nineteen hijackers die in a car crash?

I'd recommend one of the many, many OTL "coulda woulda shoulda" moments as a POD. It'd also give oomph for Bush to press an attack against the Taliban.

 

[RanulfC]

In this tl terrorists connected to the Taliban have killed 224 in 1998, 17 American sailors in 2000 and now 197 civillians in 2001. Bush has no choice but to invade. Maybe he'll try to invade Iraq later but I doubt that he'd be able to drum up support.

I was watching all this happen in real-time The fact that the camps were in Afghanistan and nominally supported by the Taliban was heavily under-played to Americans. What was (rather loudly) noted by the talking heads was the "fact" that the groups/camps in question were being "funded and supported" by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Never mind the multiple actual experts who were pointing out that these groups were mostly in direct opposition if not conflict with Hussein, that was drowned out. Unlike 9/11 Bush and company will be aware they ONLY get one shot here and they will take it at the target THEY are looking at.

Let's look at OTL, the majority of the 9/11 attackers were DIRECTLY tied to Saudi Arabia both origin and support. (A perennial problem since Saudi pays a LOT of money for it's possible 'domestic' issues to go somewhere else to bother someone else, preferably the US and Europe) The fact that Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and supported by the Taliban was initially down-played with the expectation that the Taliban would deny involvement and make some promises to cooperate with the US. It's how most governments would react, but the Taliban didn't and surprised everyone by not only supporting Al-Qaeda but openly doing so. People tend to forget that there was an initial push, (later brought up again to help justify going after Hussein) that Iraq was behind 9/11. (Note the the Taliban did NOT tend to be so open about the other attacks)

With less American outrage, (and yes it will VASTLY less and a lot less focused as well) this is ONLY going to provide a possible window for one (1) possible invasion and as Afghanistan has no significant draw for the US government and Iraq does that is how it will be spun. Bush was 'forced' to act against Afghanistan OTL by subsequent actions of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that came after 9/11 OTL which had previously NOT been as overt. He then pivoted as soon as possible to his always intended target of Iraq. This TL he would very much have the option of turning American outrage towards his primary target and would arguably do so as Afghanistan nets him nothing and Iraq is seen as the "key" focus.

The problem with the Taliban was essentially even though there was a lot of outrage and anger over the way they ran Afghanistan for the most part without the major, and world-wide impact of 9/11 they were being "normalized" as the ruling government in Afghanistan because no one wanted to get involved in the effort to take them out. You yourself make that point pretty clear when you note that they killed more people in 1998 than in the OP attack of 20 and the US did almost nothing. (Note that was NOT because the Administration did not want to do something but that they were prevented from doing so by political opponents in the US government. The same elements that would later fully support and endorse actions by a President from their own party while un-ironically pointing the finger at the opposition and saying "You can't wait till your President is in power to declare war" when they did that very thing)

If this is going to be used to leverage a conflict then it will quite logically be a conflict the US government WANTS to happen WHERE they want it to happen. That's Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Randy

 

[Jono]

...all nineteen hijackers die in a car crash?

I think a spread of a car crash, training accidents and arrests would take all 19 out a lot more plausibly than a sole car crash.

 

[Resurgam]

I think a spread of a car crash, training accidents and arrests would take all 19 out a lot more plausibly than a sole car crash.

Agreed. I suppose the OP meant that Atta and the pilots died in a car crash, but I don't think they were ever together like that.