AHC: Bushwank

George W. Bush is said by many to have been one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.
With a POD no earlier than... say... 1994 make him one of the best if not the best president ever.
 
Iraq secretly rearms, begins manufacture of chemical and biological weapons underground. One large stock of VX or Sarin is all it takes for Bush to be vindicated as a heroic figure willing to make hard decisions for the sake of the world.
 
George W. Bush is said by many to have been one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.

Not everybody thinks he was the worst president ever. Many historians give him a mid-level rank.

With a POD no earlier than... say... 1994 make him one of the best if not the best president ever.

Well, for starters, capturing Osama shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, avoiding the Iraq War or else changing how it is carried out and a better federal response to Huricane Katrina.
 
If he somehow managed to see and avoid/lessen the real estate bubble that later led to the financial crisis, that would be a start, though it's highly unlikely IMHO.

No invasion of Iraq and a more successful strategy in Afghanistan (bin Laden captured) would help; not putting the US under a pile of debt would also go a long way towards saving his reputation. He could also ban torture and improve the system for prosecuting captured terrorists.

Basically, if he was more left-wing on foreign policy and managed the economy better, he might have a far better image.
 
Basically, if he was more left-wing on foreign policy and managed the economy better, he might have a far better image.

What about social issues? If he kept his OTL stance on some on them, would he still be remembered as the greatest president by the majority of Americans?
 
Not everybody thinks he was the worst president ever. Many historians give him a mid-level rank.

I give him a lower-middle myself. It will be interesting to see how he is viewed a generation or two from now, when historians actually have had time to judge him.

Well, for starters, capturing Osama shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, avoiding the Iraq War or else changing how it is carried out and a better federal response to Huricane Katrina.
The first is easy, the second possible but rather out of character for him, and the last wasn't his fault in the first place.

With a PoD in 1994 or later? Clinton, while still POTUS, takes one of the several chances he had to kill OBL. There is no 9/11, no Patriot Act, no invasion of Afghanistan, no Global War on Terror.

Bush picks someone else as VP - someone not terribly well known, but well-spoken and with a good moderate track record. He wins 2000 clean after his VP candidate trounces Lieberman in the VP debate, swinging about 1% of voters - enough to give him a win in the popular count as well as an uncontested win in Florida. Gore still protests and demands recounts, but Florida keeps coming up clearly for Bush each time. Gore is discredited, and Bush looks good by comparison.

Bush has some small but notable and popular victories in his first year in office (tax cuts, a few token medicare reforms, etc.). In 2002 Saddam starts another offensive against his Kurdish population, again using chemical weapons as he had before. A plane goes astray and a mustard gas bomb is dropped in Turkey. Several children are killed.

Bush sees a chance to finish what his father didn't, and takes it. With a limited international coalition (most NATO powers, pressured by fellow member Turkey, contribute token forces), the US smashes Iraq. Saddam goes into hiding, and is captured in early 2003. There is a large uptick in Bush's popularity numbers as a result.

Then, late in 2003, Bush is assassinated. As is typical in such cases, his memory is always colored with a sympathetic lens for being cut down by a madman while still in office.

The Democrats win in 2004. The economic recession hits a bit earlier in 2007 (no turbulence from 9/11), and many people blame the new administration. The positive (though unimpressive) economic growth while Bush was in office looks much better in contrast to the 2007 crash.

All in all, very unlikely, but that's as close as I can get to Bush being remembered as a great POTUS.

Edit to add: forgot to put in, the Dem POTUS elected in 2004 also looks bad when FEMA is criticized for the response to Katrina in 2005. Again, Bush looks better because his successor looks bad. Not fair, but common.
 
Bush' donations to fighting AIDS (as IOTL) helps finding a cure.

Following the invasion of Iraq, massive WMD are found in large quantities. Having studied the lessons learned from previous occupations, the US keep a occupation force of around 300.000 troops, while keeping he Iraqi police and suitable parts of the Iraqi Army operational.

This makes the occupation much more peacefull, and makes it a lot easier to form a broad coalition in the Iraqi Government, with the support of all factions. Al Qaeda in Irag never manages to establish it self.

By 2005 the US leaves Iraq (except for training teams), which becomes the model democracy for the Middle East.

The troops from Iraq mainly goes to Afghanistan, where the US since 2002 have been focused on rebuilding the Afghan economy, root out corruption, and train Afgahn security forces.

Osama is killed in 2006, and in 2007 negotiations with Taliban results in them laying down their weapons, resulting in a relative peace.

Simultaneously Bush ratifies the Kyoto protocol, and makes the US a leader in green energy (serious butterflies needed :)) and improves relations with Russia and China, as well as investing ressources in developing the economies in Africa, in total raising the reputation of the US.....oh yeah and personally oversees rescue operations following Katrina, resulting in very effective crisis management.

Finally in 2008 Bush is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for all his achievements.

:eek::eek::eek:...and retires the most loved President since Roosevelt.
 
Have Osama and several top leaders of Al Qaeda captured around late 2001 in Tora Bora (when they were close). He for some reason decides against the invasion of Iraq.
 
Bush doesn't listen to Rumsfeld (invading with a small army) or doesn't allow Bremer to dissolve the Iraqi Army rather than put it under new management.

This means no religious civil war and scary anarchy that killed thousands of U.S. troops and many times that number of Iraqis.

The Iraq War gets the same praises that Bosnia or Kosovo get--mission accomplished, limited U.S. casualties, better outcome. Bush is remembered as the bringer of freedom for Iraqis.

This isn't even a Bush-wank--this is him doing something sensible and within his power.
 
Probably should add "no contractors" as well.

In a TL where there're adequate boots on the ground (U.S. or Iraqi), there might not be a need for PMCs.

(At least the armed ones--apparently Haliburton provided a lot of the food and based on a veteran relative's comments, it was good food.)
 
In a TL where there're adequate boots on the ground (U.S. or Iraqi), there might not be a need for PMCs.

(At least the armed ones--apparently Haliburton provided a lot of the food and based on a veteran relative's comments, it was good food.)

Yeah, with the current US structure you're always going to have contractors. As long as they're not trigger pullers or decision makers, that's fine.

The cooks don't need to be armed if the troops they're feeding are required to carry their individual weapons while on-base as well as in the field.
 
What if Bush didn't run in 2000... then he could run in 2008, after the crash happened, ousting Gore from the White House and leading America to economic recovery and social reform.

EDIT: Little chance of social reform, but it would end up giving him a pretty good legacy.
 
Last edited:
What if Bush didn't run in 2000... then he could run in 2008, after the crash happened, ousting Gore from the White House and leading America to economic recovery and social reform.

Wow... every single comment I can think of in reply to this is too political to post, yet my comments also are critical of both parties and a large number of senior individuals in each.

That's both impressive and rather scary.
 
What if Bush didn't run in 2000... then he could run in 2008, after the crash happened, ousting Gore from the White House and leading America to economic recovery and social reform.

EDIT: Little chance of social reform, but it would end up giving him a pretty good legacy.

If Bush doesn't run in 2000 isn't it more likely that McCain gains the nomination and beats Gore?
 
Top