What would be the consequences of Reagan having been impeached over the Iran-Contra affair? Say if Fawn Hall hadn't been quite so devoted to Ollie North and revealed the truth that Reagan had ordered North to divert funds to the Contras. Instead of shredding the documents that she admitted to, she kept them and handed them over in exchange for immunity from prosecution.
Reagan impeached
- Thread starter Rickshaw
- Start date
President Dukakis, 88-96,
President Gore, 96-04,
President John McCain, 04-?
good news: budget surplus, relatively well-behaved banks (I think), screenwriters needing something besides "emotionally wounded Gulf War veteran" to move plots forward are spurred to higher levels of creativity with potentially spectacular cultural-economic butterflies.
more good news: hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans are alive who otherwise would not have been.
not so great news: Saddam Hussein has "reunited" Iraq with Kuwait, and, Osama Bin Laden gains stature in Saudi Arabia for mounting a defiant "line of martyrs" along the Saudi border "deterring" Iraqi forces from entering Saudi land.
potentially kind of bad news: Saddam's WMD programs are continuing without outside interference, except for the odd Israeli incursion to destroy key facilities/assets.
potentially interesting news: goodness only knows how Dukakis, Gore might react to Yugoslav, Rwandan genocides
more potentially interesting news: break-up of Soviet Union could end up delayed, or, flaring up into unforeseen conflict(s) directly or indirectly from American mishandling of situation(s).
President Gore, 96-04,
President John McCain, 04-?
good news: budget surplus, relatively well-behaved banks (I think), screenwriters needing something besides "emotionally wounded Gulf War veteran" to move plots forward are spurred to higher levels of creativity with potentially spectacular cultural-economic butterflies.
more good news: hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans are alive who otherwise would not have been.
not so great news: Saddam Hussein has "reunited" Iraq with Kuwait, and, Osama Bin Laden gains stature in Saudi Arabia for mounting a defiant "line of martyrs" along the Saudi border "deterring" Iraqi forces from entering Saudi land.
potentially kind of bad news: Saddam's WMD programs are continuing without outside interference, except for the odd Israeli incursion to destroy key facilities/assets.
potentially interesting news: goodness only knows how Dukakis, Gore might react to Yugoslav, Rwandan genocides
more potentially interesting news: break-up of Soviet Union could end up delayed, or, flaring up into unforeseen conflict(s) directly or indirectly from American mishandling of situation(s).
Last edited:
I think he would have gotten away it myself. But Bush would probably have lost his election. Reagan was pretty popular and I don't think even documents proving he ordered things to happen would have resulted in his impeachment (and conviction... the more important part). Clinton escaped conviction because of his popularity and Reagan was just as popular. Tie that in with it being the lame duck period of his Presidency and I just don't think you have the votes.
Bush however would have lost as part of the fall out though
Bush however would have lost as part of the fall out though
It's unlikely that the Senate would convict him, unless he handles things very poorly. I have a hunch that, conviction/removal or not, Bob Dole, rather then George Bush, would be the Republican nominee in '88. I wonder if Joe Biden (if his mistakes were esponged/buterflied awy in TTL) or Jesse Jackson might supplant Dukkakis as the Democratic nominee in TTL.
For the sake of institutional memory, here's a thread from two months ago on this topic: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=167485
and a DBWI from earlier this month: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=183616
For the sake of institutional memory, here's a thread from two months ago on this topic: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=167485
and a DBWI from earlier this month: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=183616
Reniero Zeno
Banned
I'm not an expert on American presidents but would this get rid of the Reaganomics policies? Or the massive military build-ups? Neither of which helped the American economy and decayed the American government's ability to react to events in the future.
No, it would not have done much to Reaganomics or the military. The scandal broke in November 1986, nearly six years into the Reagan presidency. Reaganomics was well-entrenched. Oliver North's trial did not begin until 1989, after Reagan was out of office.
Look at the timetable between the Watergate break-in in 1972 to Nixon's resignation in 1974 under even stronger evidence for inevitable impeachment. If Reagan faces impeachment, it would likely take mere months off of his term. Meanwhile, George Bush would skillfully try to distance himself from the problem as he would run for president as an incumbent.
If Bush wins in 1988, the time line, including a continuation of economic and military policy, would not change.
Now, how could the scandal elevate the status of a Democratic candidate. The strongest OTL Democrat, Dukakis, proved to be very weak. The others?
Jesse Jackson - More racist polarization that Obama supporters could ever imagine.
Al Gore - Not in the limelight; potential to emerge within the Senate.
Dick Gebhardt - Typical congressman with too little exposure.
Paul Simon - Maybe best for the job, but too underspoken barring a Senate event.
Gary Hart - Political suicide for the Democratic party, given OTL.
Joe Biden - His veracity was already under question.
John Glenn - Too old.
Ted Kennedy - Too far left.
For the Democratic ticket to strengthen, something would have to happen to put Gore or Simon in the limelight.
No it wouldn't. That said, if a Democrat were elected POTUS in 1988 (a very strong possibility) he could attempt to undo Reagan's economic & military initiatives. If said Democrat has a majority in the House & Senate, he might succeed in this quest.
You might as well ask what would happen if Santa Claus was impeached, or the Easter Bunny.
American politics had not yet reached the disgraceful level that exists today and one party would simply never have attempted to throw the entire country into turmoil for short term political gain.
Even today, I doubt the Democrats would ever try to pull such a stunt. It take REAL unity on ideology to get a majority to spit in the Constitution's face, something the Democrats and their "Big Tent" arrangement completely lack.
For whatever reason, Republican office holders seem to be much closer philosophically and therefore able to act in a unified manner on purely political motivated issues.
American politics had not yet reached the disgraceful level that exists today and one party would simply never have attempted to throw the entire country into turmoil for short term political gain.
Even today, I doubt the Democrats would ever try to pull such a stunt. It take REAL unity on ideology to get a majority to spit in the Constitution's face, something the Democrats and their "Big Tent" arrangement completely lack.
For whatever reason, Republican office holders seem to be much closer philosophically and therefore able to act in a unified manner on purely political motivated issues.
Cook
Banned
Christmas sales of Milk and Cookies are reduced slightly, there are less fat kids and visits to the dentist are less painful?
...what? How would investigating an illegal "arms-for-funds" trade that the executive branch was doing would be throwing "the country into turmoil for short term political gain."?
Cook
Banned
What makes you think that Dukakis would be less willing than Bush to guarantee the security of Saudi Arabia and expel Saddam from Kuwait?
Cook
Banned
Dukakis wasn’t ‘left’; he was very much a centre of the road candidate and an ex-army officer at that!
No American President was going to allow Saddam to get away with keeping Kuwait.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I would say :
Michael Dukakis. 1989 - 1993
Robert Dole 1993 - 2001
Lamar Alexander 2001 - 2009
Barack Obama 2009 -
Michael Dukakis. 1989 - 1993
Robert Dole 1993 - 2001
Lamar Alexander 2001 - 2009
Barack Obama 2009 -
Lamar Alexander! ... I hope not, he was pretty kooky
Dole might wait for the next election and let Bush take the fall for the Reagan Iran-Contra thing.
From what I recall, Dukakis said that he would not have done Gulf War I.
I remember being surprised that he would say that outright.
From a non-"Realpolitik" perspective, what's one totalitarian dictatorship selling oil got that another totalitarian dictatorship selling oil doesn't?
and that's assuming Saddam would have gone for Saudi Arabia. Saddam did approach the Saudi King with the idea of working together to take out the tiny Persian Gulf sheikocracies. I think Saddam was more or less content to nab Kuwait, access to water and even more oil, etc.
Perspective. US perspective is skewed compared to the rest of the world as far as the political spectrum goes, I've found.
All depends. As Reagan was impeached and removed from officer, as I've suggested, the US may not under his successor become as heavily involved in Kuwaiti politics nor as tightly tied to that country by treaty.
I've got only one thing to say: TO THIS TL!!!
BTW, Calbear, you're sigged!
BTW, Calbear, you're sigged!
That was just to good...
Dukakis was a centrist by Massachusetts Democrat standards.
also, I think Bush 41 was the first president since Nixon to really throw around American troops in significant numbers (not counting Grenada), invading Panama, sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Kuwait, etc. (It's funny, I don't remember too much happening in North Korea during Bush 41's term...)
I think Bush's actions were a major shift of perspective, re-setting the bar for military actions expected from the United States. There was definitely some crowing about the actions having "buried" Vietnam, etc.