9-11 thwarted

Interesting ATL could be that the passengers take control of Flight 93 and those 4 poor Al-Qaeda bastards end up getting waterboarded a bunch of times with an all expense paid, unlimited duration trip to Club Gitmo... wonder how much useful intelligence they have

There is a small problem of landing the plane..... :eek:
 
Without the attacks, society stays in the 1990s state of mind until the housing bubble bursts, or Hurricane Katrina hits - whichever comes first ITTL. Bush doesn't get elected to another term, and Rudy Guiliani isn't as canonized in NYC...

The housing bubble bursting and Katrina both occurred after the 2004 Elections. Neither event will make Bush a one-term President.
 
On airliners?

Yes. Just have ATC talk the passengers into engaging the autopilot landing system. And there's a good chance that someone on the plane even has basic experience with flying aircraft.

The housing bubble bursting and Katrina both occurred after the 2004 Elections. Neither event will make Bush a one-term President.

Perhaps, in increase of militia activity? The MSM was all over the militia movement during the 1990s, and now they're all but forgotten.
 
Last edited:
4 poor Al-Qaeda bastards end up getting waterboarded a bunch of times with an all expense paid, unlimited duration trip to Club Gitmo... wonder how much useful intelligence they have

Arguments about the effectiveness of waterboarding as an intel-gathering tool aside, my understanding of Al-Qaeda is that like many terrorist organisations its various operatives are divided into pretty well isolated cells. So as far as tip-offs about other future attacks being planned etc, probably not much. They'll be able to provided tidbits to back up what is already known (verifying old training locations, for example), but they're not going to lead US special forces to Osama Bin Laden's front door.
 
No! Just no! There is always somebody who claims, that Bush would be a one-term president without 9/11 but nobody can explain why. Bush had before 9/11 approval-rating in the fifties. Okay, Congress would become democratic in 2002, but this give Bush the chance to run as counterweight against "the liberals". Without the 9/11
recession the economy is in better shape, without sinking money in Iraq there may be even an balanced budget. 2004 would be a very boring election with a low voter turnout....and with a clear victory for Bush.

As a wartime incumbent President, Bush won re-election by a margin of 30,000 votes in southwest Ohio. He called this a "mandate". That he had "political capital" and he "was gonna spend it!":rolleyes:

Oh, BTW, 2002? The GOP had control of both houses and the SCotUS, not to mention the WH. No way to blame the Democrats for anything. God knows, though, Fox News tried.:rolleyes: They had complete control until 2006 and proceeded to spend our tax money like drunken sailors.

Without the "rally around the troops" effect of 9/11, you only need 15,500 votes in SW Ohio to go the other way. Hardy insurmountable.:cool:
 
As a wartime incumbent President, Bush won re-election by a margin of 30,000 votes in southwest Ohio. He called this a "mandate". That he had "political capital" and he "was gonna spend it!":rolleyes:

Oh, BTW, 2002? The GOP had control of both houses and the SCotUS, not to mention the WH. No way to blame the Democrats for anything. God knows, though, Fox News tried.:rolleyes: They had complete control until 2006 and proceeded to spend our tax money like drunken sailors.

Without the "rally around the troops" effect of 9/11, you only need 15,500 votes in SW Ohio to go the other way. Hardy insurmountable.:cool:

Other could say, Bush won because he got 3.000.000 votes more then Kerry nationwide:D. Okay, okay, I know, Electoral college and all, but I think you don´t get the point. Bush was 2004 an extremly polarizing president. One half of the country hated him, the other rallied around him. Both sides mobilized their voters. 20.000.000 more people voted nationwide in 2004 then in 2000. You talk about 15.000 votes in Ohio and don´t realize that there were 1.000.000 more voters in Ohio 2004 then in 2000. And this polarisation and mobilisation just wouldn´t happend without 9/11. Bush wouldn´t be Hitler reloaded for the other half in the country, he would just be the not so bright, but symphatic guy in the White House, who keep this tax-raising liberals in congress in check.
20-25.000.000 people wouldn´t vote in this alternate 2004, because there is no real reason for this. Hey, the president is a nice guy, the economy isn´t so bad, why should we vote him out of office. I assume Bush would win Ohio with a margin closer to the 165.000 in 2000. He would propably win states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Oregon.
And now we come to 2002. That the presidental Party gains seats in a midterm-election is an historical anomaly. Normaly they lose. The Republicans already lost the Senat and had just a marginal house-majority in 2000. And so its save to assume they would also lose the majority in the House in 2002 without 9/11, because this is the way the things normaly go.
 
Top