No 9/11 Attacks

Osama bin-Laden dies of snake bite in Sudan, in 1998. Al-Qaeda never becomes the internatonal force it did in OTL; the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, along with bombing of the USS Cole, represent their highwater mark. Since those events still manage to come off, bin-Laden's death leads to insufficient butterflies in order to avoid the election of Bush in 2000.

What is the Bush presidency like? Does he still find an excuse to invade & occupy Iraq? Does he get re-elected in 2004?

I know this has probably been done to death, but I doubt many topics from modern history haven't been examined here previously.

I predict Howard Dean winning the Democratic nomination in 2004, and defeating a very unpopular President Bush in the general election of that year, with around 320 EVs. Of course, this assumes no Iraq War. If there is an Iraq War, then presumably Kerry is still the nominee, and he also wins, probably by a slightly larger margin than Dean.
 
Osama bin-Laden dies of snake bite in Sudan, in 1998. Al-Qaeda never becomes the internatonal force it did in OTL; the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, along with bombing of the USS Cole, represent their highwater mark. Since those events still manage to come off, bin-Laden's death leads to insufficient butterflies in order to avoid the election of Bush in 2000.

What is the Bush presidency like? Does he still find an excuse to invade & occupy Iraq? Does he get re-elected in 2004?

I know this has probably been done to death, but I doubt many topics from modern history haven't been examined here previously.

I predict Howard Dean winning the Democratic nomination in 2004, and defeating a very unpopular President Bush in the general election of that year, with around 320 EVs. Of course, this assumes no Iraq War. If there is an Iraq War, then presumably Kerry is still the nominee, and he also wins, probably by a slightly larger margin than Dean.

No bin laden probably means no Iraq war since one of the main reasons was a connection to Al-Qaeda. If Bush does try to invade Iraq anyway then I can't really see him getting even the degree of support that he got OTL. Chances are Bush ends up as another unremarkable president, he doesn't run for another term seeing no reason to. Wither Kerry or Dean would run for president is completely up in the air.
 
Are you talking about a real connection between Iraq and AQ?
No I'm talking about one of the things used for justification. AQ was used as one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, if they don't exist then that leaves only the WMD justification.
 

boredatwork

Banned
no 9-11 attacks means that Bush sticks with the mildly isolationist humbler US of his campaign and acceptance speeches. Much more focus on Latam instead. Possibly a few more free trade agreements there, and probably more attention - likely Chavez never regains power. Some sort of immigration reform likely goes through, thanks to both more attention to the south, and much lower fears of terrorism.

As for Iraq - the pre war sanctions leaked like a seive, and the no fly zones were expensive to maintain and a magnet for terrorists. Almost certainly you would have some sort of strike on Iraq - probably aimed at regime decapitation once the US had struck a deal with a less disagreeable army officer.

No afghan war or invasion - no 9-11 means that the US still views the Taliban as a bit extreme, but still the only folks bringing even a semblance of order to the area.

No 9-11 means no regime change, so Kurds and Shiites are still getting it in the neck, rape rooms are likely still in operation, and war with Iran might or might not re-errupt.

No 9-11 obviously means no Patriot act or related issues, and no fears that the terrorist strike is going to agravate the 01 bear market. The fed doesn't go hog wild on liquidity - no excess to feed into real estate (or investments in China, for that matter), means a much lower real estate bubble, so the much less economic disruption today.

The US-India rapprochment would probably continue. The US & EU would continue to drift appart, but it wouldn't be so obvious. No 9-11 => no full bore Iraq war and occupation => among other things, Aznar is still in power in Spain.

No Iraq war = no seizures of documents on sanction busting, so less jaundiced US view of UN/France/Russia/Germany.

Bush would likely still have won the 04 campaign - the advantages of incumbency are dramatic, and without the 9-11 atmosphere, the Democrats would likely have reverted to form and nominated someone even easier to tar as a left-lib than Kerry.

No 9-11 means no fahrenheit 911, and no spate of anti-war, anti WoT movies - so the left would probably be obsessing more over cigarrettes, the environment, and gm in general.

Lower airfare costs (lower insurance rates, lower fuel prices, lower security fees). You could keep your shoes on at the airport, and still bring drinks/mouthwash on the plane.

A different world, arguably a better world for most everyone who isn't an Iraqi or an Afghani, but still a vulnerable world, waiting for a mass terror attack (which would likely kick off a very similar cultural/security/legislative response - given that the Patriot act really just brought US laws to the same level on such issues that European & Japanese laws had been at for years).
 
If there arent osama-Bin-laden there would be another scarecrow for american tax bearers- Military-industrial complex need money! And CIE too.;)
 
Wasn't there a assasination attempt made on Bin Laden at this time? IIRC made by a group of terrorists who considered Al Q softies, Algerian crazies...
 
Without the 9/11 attacks Bush would never get a second term.
Why? As far as I see, his approval ratings were before 9/11 about 50%. Without 9/11 the economy would be in better shape. All working for the incumbent. Just look at Clinton. Who would in November 94 expect him to win a clear victory in 1996.
 
Top