Laura Bush and others killed on 9/11

[Polish Eagle]

The US Capitol Building was one of the targets considered for the September 11 attacks IOTL. Coincidentally, Laura Bush was scheduled to address the Senate Education Committee (chaired by Edward Kennedy) at 9:15 AM that day.

Suppose a couple of flight schedules get shuffled around ITTL, and that the briefing, originally supposed to be held in the Russell Senate Office Building, is instead held in the Capitol Building itself. The first plane to reach its target is one of those directed to Washington and strikes the Capitol, killing, among others, the First Lady (Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, among others, were also supposed to be at that briefing--suppose they're killed too).

While the political consequences of Kennedy and Clinton dying are probably more significant in the long-term, in the short-term, President Bush's reaction to his wife's death will be the larger change from OTL. What happens if both the current and former First Lady are killed on September 11 (assuming that the strikes on the World Trade Center themselves follow a few minutes later more-or-less as IOTL)?

 

[James G]

That is a lot of butterflies there!

 

[Thothian]

Bush will lose his damn mind, to put it mildly. He may also be less helpful towards American Muslims than he was after 9/11 OTL.

Also, he pretty much has a blank check to do whatever he wants in retaliation. The image of a destroyed Capitol Building, and the murder of the FLOTUS (and her predecessor) bodes ill for Afghanistan. At the time, Kandahar was the Taliban's capital city. It may well receive a fire-bombing on the level of Dresden, or even a 100 kt or so nuke (depending on Bush's anger, and if Cheney goes along with him or talks him down). I know this is extreme. So would be the image on tv of the Capitol Building burning as first responders bring out the bodies of 2 FLOTUSes.

The howling, frothing rage that this incident would produce in the American public is difficult to describe. 9/11 anger x10.

Afghanistan still gets invaded. And the RoE? Bush's orders: " Anyone who doesn't snap to and do as told instantly, goes to prison. Anyone who resists that is shot on the spot."

The US would lose a lot of international support for the harshness of the occupation. Ironically, the US might well get support from Russia, as Putin would appreciate a free hand against any internal dissidents he can link even tangentially to Islamic extremism.

Putin maybe says something like this the day after the attack: " This filthy murder of a state leader's wife .... (shakes head)... this is savage barbarism. The Russian Federation absolutely and fully supports the United States of America in whatever they choose to do in response to this base evil. I also hope that we will receive the same support as we deal with the terrorist scum attacking Russia. Let anyone in the world who cares know this: Russia will pursue terrorists to the gates of Hell, and push them through it."

 

[mattep74]

As soon as he sees this Cheney will ask leaders of Democrats and Republicans(if he can find them) if now is a good time to use the 25th amendment. W is in no position to be rational.

And if he goes OTL route and demand that the Talibans hand over Bin Ladin i guess they will do just that to avoid instant sunshine

 

[MFP4073]

I do see a stronger, more aggressive War on Terror but I just don't see "city leveling" taking place even IF public opinion was behind the idea. No blank check. Why? Leveling a city to kill a few rats is a purely emotional response that fails to reflect the reality of asymmetrical conflict and, in this case, achieves nothing demonstrable in the way of success: There are no guarantees that OBL or Taliban leadership is killed and no proof in the event that they are. The only guaranteed result is a huge loss of innocent life, the loss of counterterrorism support from allies, rage across the Muslim world (OTL x10) and validation of what the terrorists claim to be fighting against. No sane leader would order city leveling in response to a terror attack except in the case where the attack was nuclear in nature or scale and a sovereign nation clearly carried it out. In this case we aren’t looking at a terrorist attack but an Act of War. Not even close to OTL or TTL. Bottom line: Concepts like city leveling are the types of thing you see in Total War situations (a la WWII) - not as responses to a terror attack by a sane leader.

Given the above, you’re more likely to see the 25th amendment coming into play if a raging, grief-stricken W (or foaming-at-the-mouth Cheney) orders a 100 kt nuke dropped on Kandahar or calls for the carpet bombing of Baghdad. The ordering of the use of nukes or city leveling in this case would immediately call into question the sanity of the president. In this scenario there is a strong likelihood that cabinet and military leaders would temporarily remove the president from power due to illness.

Leveling a single city via a nuke or carpet bombing isn't like ordering an on-demand movie - these things don't just happen and take time to plan. It is during this time, saner heads would prevail. It would take an earlier POD (that would likely butterfly away 9/11 as we know it) in order for these types of things to be considered a acceptable use of military power in response to a terrorist attack.

 

[Anaxagoras]

As soon as he sees this Cheney will ask leaders of Democrats and Republicans(if he can find them) if now is a good time to use the 25th amendment. W is in no position to be rational.

I doubt he would have to. Bush was a level-headed enough guy to recognize this himself and invoke the 25th Amendment on his own.

 

[TRH]

I doubt he would have to. Bush was a level-headed enough guy to recognize this himself and invoke the 25th Amendment on his own.

On the other hand, the public sympathy for the President who just lost his wife would make removing him from office political suicide, even if he went completely batshit.

 

[Asp]

This stuff about how Bush was a thin-skinned madman who could have been provoked to nuke Afghanistan, tear up the Constitution, and go full Emperor Palpatine if 9/11 was significantly worse is a trope that comes up all the time in these sorts of threads and it's really dumb.

Bush was an intelligent but flawed President. He would not have gone literally insane and started launching nukes even if his wife had been killed, and if an alien space bat somehow hijacked his mind and forced him to he wouldn't find any uniformed military officer who was willing to go along with it. With two-man rule the POTUS needs to get at least one to agree to initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

I also don't buy that Americans could get any angrier than they actually were in OTL. When two of the world's tallest buildings have been spectacularly brought down with hijacked airliners in the middle of Manhatten killing thousands of people and the nation's military nerve center has been attacked you've pretty much reached the outrage ceiling. There's not much you can do to top that, even killing FLOTUS.

Most likely scenario is that things proceed roughly as in OTL with Bush's failures being viewed more sympathetically by history since the murder of his wife could be seen as playing a role. Outside chance that he resigns from grief and feeling he is too personally compromised to lead the counterstrike, so Cheney is put in charge. That opens up a whole new barrel of butterflies.

 

[Unknown]

Yeah, I also see a stronger War on Terror (especially in Afghanistan; at least, until the Iraqi invasion happens), but I don't see Bush going crazy here...

 

[JamesG]

On the other hand, the public sympathy for the President who just lost his wife would make removing him from office political suicide, even if he went completely batshit.

I disagree. It might be political suicide if the election was being held in the following 12 hours, but given 3 years to reflect, I think the vast majority of Americans would think that Cheney absolutely did his patriotic duty. Particularly if he hands power back when Bush is in a better state of mind / the crisis has passed. Honestly he could probably run for president in '08 with that on his record.

 

[TRH]

I disagree. It might be political suicide if the election was being held in the following 12 hours, but given 3 years to reflect, I think the vast majority of Americans would think that Cheney absolutely did his patriotic duty. Particularly if he hands power back when Bush is in a better state of mind / the crisis has passed. Honestly he could probably run for president in '08 with that on his record.

Seriously? The Gallup polls say otherwise, considering Bush's approval ratings stayed above 60 through all of 2002, and were often in the 70's. And that's without the gigantic sympathy vote that cradling his wife's dying body in the ashes of the Capitol (or whatever the mythology is) would give him. The only way anybody would be okay with it would be if he got us into a nuclear war or some other absurdities that Asp rightly describes as out of character.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Hillary killed alongside Laura? We may see Bill Clinton asking his Democrat peers to go along with anything Dubya asks, give him full emergency powers, full Palpatine-mode! For a safe and secure America!

Afghanistan (and likely Iraq, maybe even Iran...who cares if they're not Sunni!) will be wiped out. Meanwhile, the salafists in Saudi Arabia remain unpunished. Just like OTL, yippie!

 

[jonnguy2016]

Out of curiousity, who would be in Congress that day? Just the Education Committee? Or everyone? Becuase that could also be huge

 

[MFP4073]

Out of curiousity, who would be in Congress that day? Just the Education Committee? Or everyone? Becuase that could also be huge

According to this both houses were in session at the time of the attacks. By the sounds there were a lot of members present when the capitol was evacuated since they were milling around outside and the capitol police were wondering where to send them all.

I'd think the death of a large portion of the of the legislative branch (say 50%) and their staffs would fundamentally scare the average person. Representatives and senators are the men and women we elect to represent us. They're the people we get to hire and fire every 2/6 years. Having a large number of them wiped out would be a huge psychological blow: not just to the average Joe, but to the surviving members as well. I can see this shaking the country to the core (if that is possible given how traumatic OTL 9/11 was) and fundamentally affecting the functioning of checks and balances and legislative activity for years to come.

 

[New Deal Democrat]

Australian PM John Howard was also supposed to address both chambers of congress either later that day or that evening.

 

[JamesG]

Seriously? The Gallup polls say otherwise, considering Bush's approval ratings stayed above 60 through all of 2002, and were often in the 70's. And that's without the gigantic sympathy vote that cradling his wife's dying body in the ashes of the Capitol (or whatever the mythology is) would give him. The only way anybody would be okay with it would be if he got us into a nuclear war or some other absurdities that Asp rightly describes as out of character.

I agree, he just flat out wasn't going to start lobbing nukes at Afghanistan, but then this whole conversation becomes pointless, because the American response very nearly emptied the bag of reasoned responses. Because, as Asp also said:

When two of the world's tallest buildings have been spectacularly brought down with hijacked airliners in the middle of Manhatten killing thousands of people and the nation's military nerve center has been attacked you've pretty much reached the outrage ceiling. There's not much you can do to top that, even killing FLOTUS.

Most likely scenario is that things proceed roughly as in OTL with Bush's failures being viewed more sympathetically by history since the murder of his wife could be seen as playing a role.

So let's assume he does something more extreme. Do you really think that those numbers would be the same if he's waging a literal vendetta war, possibly (if we're subscribing to one of the moods of this thread) turning Afghanistan, and possibly also parts of the Arab world, into radioactive glass? Those Gallup numbers were reflective of a president who was waging a somewhat measured war of regime change, not a president who is indiscriminately murdering civilians.

On the flip side, in this Cheney/Congress/Bush-himself-enacts-the-25th TL I'm sure his numbers would have stayed sky-high: the grieving widower who gives up power to ensure the safety of the Republic, the protection of the innocent, and the reasoned disposition of military forces to preserve the lives of American soldiers.

So I feel like what you're saying is that if literally nothing else changes, Bush being declared incompetent would be political suicide, and that's fine. But if literally nothing else changes, Bush won't be declared incompetent! He'll be exactly as competent as OTL.

Also, I'll grant that if Congress did it, they would struggle in 2002, but by 2004 Bush himself won the election 50.7-48.3, not particularly close, but not a landslide. His numbers weren't bullet-proof.

 

[Asp]

Out of curiousity, who would be in Congress that day? Just the Education Committee? Or everyone? Becuase that could also be huge

According to this both houses were in session at the time of the attacks. By the sounds there were a lot of members present when the capitol was evacuated since they were milling around outside and the capitol police were wondering where to send them all.

I'd think the death of a large portion of the of the legislative branch (say 50%) and their staffs would fundamentally scare the average person. Representatives and senators are the men and women we elect to represent us. They're the people we get to hire and fire every 2/6 years. Having a large number of them wiped out would be a huge psychological blow: not just to the average Joe, but to the surviving members as well. I can see this shaking the country to the core (if that is possible given how traumatic OTL 9/11 was) and fundamentally affecting the functioning of checks and balances and legislative activity for years to come.

Australian PM John Howard was also supposed to address both chambers of congress either later that day or that evening.

The big question is exactly where the plane hits. Laura Bush and the Education Committee were in an adjacent building and the actual House and Senate Chamber are way off in the wings. If it hit the dome/center, I'm guessing most people survive, though Hastert might die because the Speaker's offices are much closer to the center and that source says he was in them during the attacks. The planning that was done for the attack was pretty good, but to my knowledge Atta and the other planners never actually visited the sights they planned to hit. We were fortunate in this aspect because they might have hit much more critical areas if they had done that; if Hani Hanjour had just taken the public tour of the Pentagon he wouldn't have hit the part that was being remodeled (he might very well have killed Rumsfeld and a significant portion of the military leadership). I don't know how much the attackers knew about the layout of the Capitol, but the ideal for them if they wanted to do the most damage would be to fly from the south and hit the House chambers directly before plowing into the rest of the building. That could collapse the south half and middle of the building at least. The House is also the most difficult chamber to replace (Senators can be replaced as fast as governors can nominate them, House vacancies require special elections) and probably the most important (no ability for Congress to enact revenue-related bills would really suck right at the beginning of a major war). The problem is that that flight course would take them right over Reagan International and Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, which brings up the risk of both collision and being shot down. Same issues as with hitting the White House. Although the Capitol is a shorter distance for someone flying from the south, which means everybody would have less time to react. So there's that.

I did read 43* by Jeff Greenfield, a TL where Gore wins the Presidency and butterflies lead to United 93 hitting the Capitol. The book says the hitting the dome squarely would be enough to bring down the roofs of both the House and Senate chambers. I personally doubt that this is true and would need to see an engineering source confirm it before I bought it, but take it for what you will.

 

[kent]

I would think that more attention would be paid to the fact that 19 of the high-jackers were Saudi's and that Saudi Arabia was backing in sprit and money moslem extremists. Saudi Arabia was given a pass about the fact of the Saudi's involvement but had the FLOTUS as well as most of Congress been taken out then maybe Bush would have held Saudi Arabia more responsible.

 

[TRH]

I agree, he just flat out wasn't going to start lobbing nukes at Afghanistan, but then this whole conversation becomes pointless, because the American response very nearly emptied the bag of reasoned responses. Because, as Asp also said:

So let's assume he does something more extreme. Do you really think that those numbers would be the same if he's waging a literal vendetta war, possibly (if we're subscribing to one of the moods of this thread) turning Afghanistan, and possibly also parts of the Arab world, into radioactive glass? Those Gallup numbers were reflective of a president who was waging a somewhat measured war of regime change, not a president who is indiscriminately murdering civilians.

Granting that Bush did just about everything reasonable to respond IOTL, there are degrees of unreasonableness, and to assume that he'd jump to impeachable offense-level abuses of civilians and indiscriminate carpet bombing just for the sake of TTL being different seems, well, facile. Never mind that "not much would change" is a perfectly reasonable response to a number of WI's, since I do think things would change, especially if Hillary Clinton or other prominent members of Congress died as well. And as far as unreasonableness goes, there's a range that goes from the totally understandable and maybe not even a bad thing changes like a direct assault on Tora Bora, not attempted IOTL because we were too afraid of casualties, and, if that didn't catch Bin Laden, then putting Pakistan's feet closer to the fire to catch him on their side of the border. But for more extreme responses, more and more widespread war crimes and human rights abuses in the vein of Abu Ghraib seems very plausible, and while embarrassing should they come to light, unlikely to do more than hurt Bush's polling numbers a little, if that. The really interesting possibilities come if Bush abandons neoconservative idealism and faith in democracy. Then, you could see delights like replacing the Taliban with a pro-American dictatorship, maybe one that oppresses Pashtuns or something. The other interesting butterfly here would be removing what I consider the main rationale behind the Iraq invasion, the idea that by creating a liberal democracy in the Muslim world, Bush hoped to create a third way for the region to follow that wasn't secular dictatorship or Islamic fundamentalism. If the attack jaded him enough, Bush might just go all-in on the secular dictators. I certainly find that more likely than him firing nukes willy-nilly.

Now, as for the idea that Bush would realize his own judgment was compromised and resign - well, you're right that people wouldn't likely get too offended on his behalf, but I just don't know how likely it is, since nothing resembling this dilemma ever cropped up for him IOTL. And barring that, I don't think the more likely set of unreasonable responses on his menu of options would be enough to corrode his popularity before the start of 2004, when the election would remove the impetus for more immediate removal.

Also, I'll grant that if Congress did it, they would struggle in 2002, but by 2004 Bush himself won the election 50.7-48.3, not particularly close, but not a landslide. His numbers weren't bullet-proof.

You shouldn't overestimate Congress' courage, though, especially on matters of foreign policy where they've willingly abandoned more and more authority to the President since the start of the Bush Administration for fear of being held accountable for wars gone wrong (or, worse, gone right after they opposed them). Between that, Party loyalty, and the chip on their shoulder that the GOP still has over Watergate, I honestly consider a Republican Congress removing a President of their Party that Democrats hate to be the ultimate betrayal of modern conservatism. It'd only happen if he was not only making bad decisions, but seriously unable to function as a human being.

 

[JamesG]

Granting that Bush did just about everything reasonable to respond IOTL, there are degrees of unreasonableness, and to assume that he'd jump to impeachable offense-level abuses of civilians and indiscriminate carpet bombing just for the sake of TTL being different seems, well, facile.

Firstly, I think I should clarify and say I'm not talking about impeachment. That would require an investigation by congress for an indictable offense. I'm talking about the 25th amendment. Specifically sections 3 and 4.

Never mind that "not much would change" is a perfectly reasonable response to a number of WI's, since I do think things would change, especially if Hillary Clinton or other prominent members of Congress died as well.

I'll accept that no changes or minimal changes are an acceptable response, but there are plausible TLs where Bush is unwilling or incapable of responding to this particular attack and, whether by his own decision or another's, is not the one wielding executive power when an American response is underway.

And as far as unreasonableness goes, there's a range that goes from the totally understandable and maybe not even a bad thing changes like a direct assault on Tora Bora, not attempted IOTL because we were too afraid of casualties, and, if that didn't catch Bin Laden, then putting Pakistan's feet closer to the fire to catch him on their side of the border. But for more extreme responses, more and more widespread war crimes and human rights abuses in the vein of Abu Ghraib seems very plausible, and while embarrassing should they come to light, unlikely to do more than hurt Bush's polling numbers a little, if that. The really interesting possibilities come if Bush abandons neoconservative idealism and faith in democracy. Then, you could see delights like replacing the Taliban with a pro-American dictatorship, maybe one that oppresses Pashtuns or something. The other interesting butterfly here would be removing what I consider the main rationale behind the Iraq invasion, the idea that by creating a liberal democracy in the Muslim world, Bush hoped to create a third way for the region to follow that wasn't secular dictatorship or Islamic fundamentalism. If the attack jaded him enough, Bush might just go all-in on the secular dictators. I certainly find that more likely than him firing nukes willy-nilly.

I'd like to commend the ideas here because it's an excellent response to the WI, and I hate to put a "but" on that sentence, but... this discussion started when I disagreed that removing Bush from power by Section 4 of the 25th amendment was political suicide. The various possibilities for American response (and you've presented more than I, and maybe Asp, had fully considered) are irrelevant because for it to have happened it had to be justified. All these possible scenarios of Bush remaining in power are irrelevant in the situation where he is already not in power. Particularly when you included the condition that he was:

...completely batshit.

Now, as for the idea that Bush would realize his own judgment was compromised and resign - well, you're right that people wouldn't likely get too offended on his behalf, but I just don't know how likely it is, since nothing resembling this dilemma ever cropped up for him IOTL. And barring that, I don't think the more likely set of unreasonable responses on his menu of options would be enough to corrode his popularity before the start of 2004, when the election would remove the impetus for more immediate removal.

You shouldn't overestimate Congress' courage, though, especially on matters of foreign policy where they've willingly abandoned more and more authority to the President since the start of the Bush Administration for fear of being held accountable for wars gone wrong (or, worse, gone right after they opposed them). Between that, Party loyalty, and the chip on their shoulder that the GOP still has over Watergate, I honestly consider a Republican Congress removing a President of their Party that Democrats hate to be the ultimate betrayal of modern conservatism. It'd only happen if he was not only making bad decisions, but seriously unable to function as a human being.

I agree that this is an unknown, but the 25th amendment presents two possible avenues for this to happen: Section 3 involves, as you say, Bush realising that he is not in a fit state to carry on a war. It's a reasonable possibility, and would only be applicable in the immediate period following the attacks, he eventually returns himself to power, again based on his own judgment, and the threat of foolish knee-jerk reactions is gone. Section 4 involves the cabinet, including the Vice-President, determining that the President is not fit to discharge his duties. There's no way the cabinet gets that done without it being indisputable. The only way for Congress to have become involved is for the President to refute the cabinet's assertion of incapacity. I also agree that I can't see two branches of government orchestrating a coup against an American president of their own party in this way (at least until this year). But again, you said it would be political suicide for anyone involved, therefore the whole discussion is predicated on it happening, and for that to be the case a whole lot of Bush's political allies had to think that it was justified.