A terrorist attack on September 11th 2000?

If the timeline for Al-Qaeda had been different and the attack took place exactly a year earlier what would have been some of the repercussions?

Not only would you have Bill Clinton in office but the US would be a few months away from an election with Bush and Gore running.
 
Interesting question. In terms of the election, Bush would push for war and probably adopt the same "cowboy" attitude he did when he was actually President. There would also be a lot, and I mean A LOT of plucking of our heartstrings in political ads using 9/11 imagery by every side. It would be an interesting election, and I would give Bush a fair shake to take it again as he did OTL.
 
Clinton sees the same rally around the flag effect that Bush did in 2001 OTL, and as a result, Gore wins in a landslide. We invade Afghanistan in December of 2000 or January of 2001. Bin Laden is captured sometime in mid to late 2001 or early 2002 at the latest. The no fly zones and sanctions stay in place in Iraq and there is no invasion.

However, with the dotcom bubble bursting in 2001, and gridlock with a Republican congress on domestic policy, President Gore Narrowly loses the 2004 election to Senator John McCain of Arizona.
 
Gore was quite hawkish and would use vice-presidential position to make himself look like is actively engaged in planning the reprisal invasion of Afganistan. Bush camp attacks the Clinton-Gore for allowing this to happen, especially after previous terrorist attacks. Gore wins the election due to better publicity and rally the flag effect, Afganistan is invaded, but Gore is faced with a hostile Congress concerned with War on Terror.
 
If Gore wins in a landslide, he'll win Congress. The Senate was tied IOTL and the Republican majority in the House was pretty slim, so a swing of a few points would give the Democrats a majority, albeit a narrow one, in both houses.
 
If Gore wins in a landslide, he'll win Congress. The Senate was tied IOTL and the Republican majority in the House was pretty slim, so a swing of a few points would give the Democrats a majority, albeit a narrow one, in both houses.
True, but if that's the case, I can see him losing Congress big in 2002 if the war lingers and becomes unpopular.
 
True, but if that's the case, I can see him losing Congress big in 2002 if the war lingers and becomes unpopular.
Afghanistan took a lot longer to become unpopular than Iraq did. It wasn't until 2007 or 2009 that a majority of Americans opposed the war in Afghanistan. More importantly Republican leaning voters are more likely to support the war than not, so that is unlikely to collapse a democratic majority
 
1. The Republicans definitely take the White House because everyone blames the attacks on the Clinton administration and Democrats.

2. Clinton invades Afghanistan with military force instead of simply using air power and the CIA. He uses American troops to seal the border with Pakistan and prevent the escape of others.

3. The Taliban are purged completely and never regain a foothold in Afghanistan again. Karzai's government still takes over.

4. Bin Laden and his main leadership are probably located much faster. US forces do not have to occupy the region more than a few years.
 
1. The Republicans definitely take the White House because everyone blames the attacks on the Clinton administration and Democrats.

2. Clinton invades Afghanistan with military force instead of simply using air power and the CIA. He uses American troops to seal the border with Pakistan and prevent the escape of others.

3. The Taliban are purged completely and never regain a foothold in Afghanistan again. Karzai's government still takes over.

4. Bin Laden and his main leadership are probably located much faster. US forces do not have to occupy the region more than a few years.

What about Achmed Shah Massud and the Northern Alliance ?
 
There will be precious little "rallying around the flag" as Republicans will be calling for Bill Clinton's resignation by that evening. They will attempt to blame everything on a Democratic President and probably largely get away with framing the attack as his fault. President and both houses of Congress go to the Republicans in the next election and Bush starts his term with considerably more legitimacy and legislative backing than OTL.
With no need for Democratic support, Bush will act even more unilaterally, which oddly enough means fewer troops in Afghanistan because of an earlier start to the Iraq War.
 
There will be precious little "rallying around the flag" as Republicans will be calling for Bill Clinton's resignation by that evening. They will attempt to blame everything on a Democratic President and probably largely get away with framing the attack as his fault. President and both houses of Congress go to the Republicans in the next election and Bush starts his term with considerably more legitimacy and legislative backing than OTL.
With no need for Democratic support, Bush will act even more unilaterally, which oddly enough means fewer troops in Afghanistan because of an earlier start to the Iraq War.

Could an earlier, more unilateral war in Iraq and possibly a messier Afghanistan cost Bush the 2004 election? Maybe even at the hands of Gore?
 
Could an earlier, more unilateral war in Iraq and possibly a messier Afghanistan cost Bush the 2004 election? Maybe even at the hands of Gore?

Possibly, but it would depend how perception is shaped. The Iraq War was a clear debacle from about thirty days in, but there are still those who believe it was necessary and proper. I find it likely that Kerry is still nominated in 2004 as the Democrats look to shore up their military credentials in the midst of an ongoing war. That election was close enough that only minor butterflies could take it either way.
 
Top