The Inaugural Attacks (01/20/2001)

Sabot Cat

Banned
LOCAL ELECTIONS HELD IN NAJAF, IRAQ
From: The Guardian
Published: October 4th 2001

640px-Meshed_ali_usnavy_%28PD%29.jpg



SADDAM HUSSEIN CAPTURED BY U.S. FORCES
From: USA Today
Published: October 17th 2001

426px-Saddamcapture.jpg



SENATE RATIFIES IRAQI-AMERICAN TREATY; RUMSFELD, DOLE, GINGRICH, POWELL ATTEND WITH IRAQI LEADERS
From: Chicago Times
Published: October 25th 2001

Six members of the Iraqi National Assembly (INA) have assembled at Independence Hall to witness the ratification of the peace treaty between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America by the Senate.

b-dole.jpg

“This generation is going to be the audience of a beautiful event we've witnessed in Eastern Europe a decade prior,” said President pro temp. Bob Dole, “which is the death of a despotic dictatorship, giving way to the birth of a new republic in the world, founded upon the principle of liberty and justice for all of its peoples.”

Allawi_1.jpg

“Iraq is the birthplace of civilization,” said Ayad Allawi of the Iraqi National Coalition, “and I can thus assure the people of the United States that we have plenty of experience in self-governance that precedes us.”

Ahmad Chalabi, of the same national political caucus, said: “we are very grateful to the United States for liberating us from that tyrant Hussein, but its time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs.”

The two major points of this treaty were the declaration of the cessation of hostilities between the two nations, and a pledge of support from the United States in the face of internal disorder and external aggression when such is requested by the Iraqi government, or to maintain “a democratic form of governance”. This treaty is the legal successor to the earlier Iraqi Instrument of Government, signed between the United States and nominal representatives of the former Hussein regime before its constitution was repealed in full by the INA.

rumsfeld_lg.jpg

“We are not interested in nation-building,” said President Rumsfeld, “because that it is not a task to be accomplished by Americans, but the people of Iraq. Democracy is not always orderly, and the expression of new found freedoms can seem like lawlessness to unsympathetic observer. But stability and peace follow when political changes can be affected not by terrorism, but by vote.”

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich expounded more upon this in his own remarks to Congress: “What we're primarily interested in doing is putting Iraqis back at the center of this equation, as opposed to the U.N. or even the U.S., because we can trust that most Iraqis don't want a return to a brutal, murdering, raping dictatorship. Most Iraqis want order, and they want to be in charge of their new found independence.”

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, dismissed under controversial circumstances, made an unexpected appearance at the event after being invited by House National Unionists with general approval from their Republican colleagues. He compared the efforts of national reconstruction with those in the United States following the Inaugural Attacks, and stated that “the U.S. constitution was drafted after approximately 100 working days, and we believe that the people of Iraq can have similarly swift success in their endeavor to forge the basic law of their country.”

IRAQI NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: CONSTITUTION BY JANUARY, ELECTIONS BY JULY
From: BBC News
Published: November 9th 2001



SECTARIAN VIOLENCE LEAVES TWO SHI'ITE MEMBERS OF THE INA DEAD
From: The Guardian
Published: December 7th 2001

The two brothers who led the “Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq” Shi'ite political party, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim and Mohammed Baqi al-Hakim, were killed by a bomb while on an off-business trip in Najaf, Iraq. Upwards of 115 other people were also claimed by the explosion, and the perpetrators remain unknown and at large.

“The SCIRI is viewed as an internal threat to Sunnis and the nation of Iraq by some violent extremists in this country because of their affiliation with the Shi'ite sect of Islam, and the nation of Iran,” said Jay Garner of the Multinational Supervisory Council, “but this not an excuse, just an explanation, for these horrendous and inexcusable act of political violence.”

iraq_pm_wideweb__430x262.jpg

“We grieve for them, and struggle to temper our anger with a commitment to our efforts to build a blessed new republic,” said Ibrahim al-Jaafari, of the same faith and political caucus as those claimed in the attacks, “and our resolve in doing so has only be strengthened.”

Iraqi-President-Jalal-Tal-008.jpg

Jalal Talabani, founder of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said, “these assassinations do not frighten us, and it will not affect the representation of Iraq's diverse political, religious and ethnic groups in the council. Two members of the SCIRI party will be appointed with haste, and these terrorists will learn that violence is no longer an effective political tool in this country.”

THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE, UPHOLDS ABORTION BAN
From: Washington Post
Published: December 30th 2001

With surprising speed in its acceptance of the case and then its deliberation, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade and unanimously upheld the Prenatal Citizenship Act, passed in March of this year at North Dakota, in the landmark case Planned Parenthood v. North Dakota. Chief Justice Janice Brown stated, “the ruling given in Roe v. Wade was a farce from beginning to end giving an ad hoc justification for dismissing societal values and anointing themselves the final arbiters of traditional morality. It went against centuries of precedent, and I consider it the among the low points of the entire Supreme Court's history.”

Heading off any possible legislative counters to be proposed by any future Democratic Congress, she maintained that the Equal Protection Clause and “all constitutional rights” are “applicable to all citizens, no matter if they are inside or outside of the womb, even without this particular piece of legislation.”

A concurring opinion from Associate Justice Alberto Gonzales did not hold that the Equal Protection Clause would be applicable to fetuses without according legislation. “Where life begins is not as settled of an issue as Chief Justice Brown maintains,” said Associate Justice Dinh, “but there is nothing objectionable in the Prenatal Citizenship Act or like legislation.”

Mcauliffe-600x350.jpg

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has used this ruling as an opportunity to reemphasize the legislative agenda for his party, “our goal now is to re-establish the separation of powers in our federal government, through the reform of the current Rumsfeld Court.”

"I find it incredibly ironic that the Democrats are complaining about the Supreme Court arbitrating these issues," said North Dakota Governor John Hoeven.

It appears likely that other states will be passing similar abortion legislation, barring possible judicial reforms.
 
Last edited:
Long term: major wipe out of the GOP perhaps by 2004 and certainly by 2008. The inevitable trial and imprisonment of women and doctors by abortion police will almost certainly give momentum to the pro-choice movement (which pro-life has OTL).

And if 2004 doesn't wipe out the GOP, the financial crisis will, a Rumsfeld presidency will almost for sure make the crisis worse.
 
How did the case get to the Supreme Court so quickly?

What's far more likely to happen for the case is something like:

December 2001-February 2002: The new law is unanimously stayed and struck down by multiple/most U.S. District Courts (citing precedent.) Usually it would take much more time, but presumably the high profile of the case sped it up.
February-August 2002: The federal government appeals the district court rulings, and the case is heard by one of the U.S. Court of Appeals. They'd probably unanimously affirm the lower court rulings.
August-December 2002: The federal government appeals to the Supreme Court, which quickly agrees to hear the case and strikes down Roe v. Wade unanimously.

It's essentially impossible for the Supreme Court to hear cases that haven't been first heard by a lower court since they don't have original jurisdiction (barring a few exceptions: they get jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.") It usually takes on the order of 3-5 years for a case to work its way up through the court system, but you could maybe narrow it to 1 year at the shortest.

Also, I'm a bit skeptical at how the Republican party is shifting hard-right so quickly without concern to public opinion. The tax code changes I can buy - they have great incentive to do so given support from business/etc. interests and the topic is dry. Banning abortion is another thing, especially criminalizing it to felony status. Compare w/ the 2000 Republican party platform which states "We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion." (of course, moderating their tone for political purposes, but they'd still have that same motive here.)
 
Last edited:
Also, running through your list of senators quickly, a few issues:

(Republican) Ben Chandler, 48th Attorney General of Kentucky (1995-2001) and 45th State Auditor of Kentucky (1991-1995)

Mr. Chandler is a Democrat; I'm not aware that he's ever been a Republican. Though I suppose he could have switched parties in exchange for being appointed, he doesn't seem the type (otherwise he'd have done so to win re-election IOTL.)

(Republican) John Ashcroft, U.S. Senator (1995-2001) and 56th Governor of Michigan (1985-1993)

Mr. Ashcroft was the governor of Missouri
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Long term: major wipe out of the GOP perhaps by 2004 and certainly by 2008. The inevitable trial and imprisonment of women and doctors by abortion police will almost certainly give momentum to the pro-choice movement (which pro-life has OTL).

And if 2004 doesn't wipe out the GOP, the financial crisis will, a Rumsfeld presidency will almost for sure make the crisis worse.

Quite a possibility for sure, depending...

How did the case get to the Supreme Court so quickly?

What's far more likely to happen for the case is something like:

December 2001-February 2002: The new law is unanimously stayed and struck down by multiple/most U.S. District Courts (citing precedent.) Usually it would take much more time, but presumably the high profile of the case sped it up.
February-August 2002: The federal government appeals the district court rulings, and the case is heard by one of the U.S. Court of Appeals. They'd probably unanimously affirm the lower court rulings.
August-December 2002: The federal government appeals to the Supreme Court, which quickly agrees to hear the case and strikes down Roe v. Wade unanimously.

It's essentially impossible for the Supreme Court to hear cases that haven't been first heard by a lower court since they don't have original jurisdiction (barring a few exceptions: they get jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.") It usually takes on the order of 3-5 years for a case to work its way up through the court system, but you could maybe narrow it to 1 year at the shortest.

I will be shifting the time scale on this one, and I agree that this is fast (although not unprecedented). I'll need some time to develop more material to go in its place, however. I can't work as fast as my ATL Supreme Court. :p

Also, I'm a bit skeptical at how the Republican party is shifting hard-right so quickly without concern to public opinion. The tax code changes I can buy - they have great incentive to do so given support from business/etc. interests and the topic is dry. Banning abortion is another thing, especially criminalizing it to felony status. Compare w/ the 2000 Republican party platform which states "We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion." (of course, moderating their tone for political purposes, but they'd still have that same motive here.)

True, but the Republican Party has chosen the strategy to have some distance from its most extremely partisan things on the agenda and the 2002 elections. Further, many of these legislative victories would not be possible without an extremely convincing super-majority and a sympathetic Supreme Court, the former of which is certainly tenuous. They are thus eager to pump out their platform before losing it.

Further, that situation is much different than in 2000 when they were trying to win a presidential election with a murder, and I further disagree that an abortion law like this is in defiance of public opinion, which has a substantive number of people in their voting base morally opposed to it and seeing it as the equivalent of murder with few exceptions. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#6)

Also, running through your list of senators quickly, a few issues:

Mr. Chandler is a Democrat; I'm not aware that he's ever been a Republican. Though I suppose he could have switched parties in exchange for being appointed, he doesn't seem the type (otherwise he'd have done so to win re-election IOTL.)

Mr. Ashcroft was the governor of Missouri

Ah, thanks for pointing these out to me~

These will both be fixed with haste, and by 'with haste' I mean 'after work'. :p
 

Vince

Monthly Donor
and 58-40 (with two absences from the Reformist Party) in the Senate

If there's only 58 votes in the Senate there is no damn way not one single Democratic Senator wouldn't try to filibuster a bill that outlaws most abortions.
 
I will be shifting the time scale on this one, and I agree that this is fast (although not unprecedented). I'll need some time to develop more material to go in its place, however. I can't work as fast as my ATL Supreme Court. :p

To be fair, Bush v. Gore took only a week or so to work its way up through the courts. But there isn't going to be the same sense of urgency on the district/appeals courts at least. (They'll stay the bill in their jurisdiction, deliberate for at least a month, and strike it down.)

Further, that situation is much different than in 2000 when they were trying to win a presidential election with a murder, and I further disagree that an abortion law like this is in defiance of public opinion, which has a substantive number of people in their voting base morally opposed to it and seeing it as the equivalent of murder with few exceptions. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/publ...-review.aspx#6)
Giving fetuses citizenship is essentially the equivalent of a personhood bill/amendment, which enjoys some strength with the Republican base but is still widely unpopular overall. Referendums to enact personhood failed 70-30 in Colorado 2010, and 58-42 even in Mississippi 2011. As detractors pointed out, this would enable prosecutions of expectant mothers under child endangerment or murder if they do anything from drinking coffee to bicycling to breastfeeding, all of which are believed (at least by some people) to increase the risk of miscarriage.

If there's only 58 votes in the Senate there is no damn way not one single Democratic Senator wouldn't try to filibuster a bill that outlaws most abortions.
...Indeed. Given everything else this Congress has been up to, this is easily solved - just have them vote away the filibuster.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
I'll rework this timeline thread more in consideration of the much appreciated constructive criticism~ :)

If there's only 58 votes in the Senate there is no damn way not one single Democratic Senator wouldn't try to filibuster a bill that outlaws most abortions.

The two Reformists, despite abstaining in the final vote, nonetheless could caucus with their mostly Republican colleagues to invoke cloture and end debate on the floor before a Democratic filibuster could gain steam. Or any two Democrats who didn't want to give explicit support for this bill but nonetheless helped it along in the Senate because of their personal positions on the issue.

Giving fetuses citizenship is essentially the equivalent of a personhood bill/amendment, which enjoys some strength with the Republican base but is still widely unpopular overall. Referendums to enact personhood failed 70-30 in Colorado 2010, and 58-42 even in Mississippi 2011.

The previously cited Gallup polling suggests that the public of 2000-2001 approved of abortion only in certain circumstances, most of which were delineated in this bill, by a pretty solid ~55%. But these are good points, all; counter-intuitively, I've discovered that "pro-life" sentiment has only grown from 2001 to 2011, and the statistics appear to be more complex than this.

To be fair, Bush v. Gore took only a week or so to work its way up through the courts. But there isn't going to be the same sense of urgency on the district/appeals courts at least. (They'll stay the bill in their jurisdiction, deliberate for at least a month, and strike it down.)

Hmm.. if anything, the court system will be more lethargic to buy everyone more time before the inevitable conclusion at the Supreme Court.

As detractors pointed out, this would enable prosecutions of expectant mothers under child endangerment or murder if they do anything from drinking coffee to bicycling to breastfeeding, all of which are believed (at least by some people) to increase the risk of miscarriage.

Those are indeed problems with it, although I'm not sure if they would be seen as such by the bill's proponents.
 
Or any two Democrats who didn't want to give explicit support for this bill but nonetheless helped it along in the Senate because of their personal positions on the issue.
I'm doubtful that any Democrats would have supported the bill however tacitly. This goes a lot further than just banning abortion, after all.

The previously cited Gallup polling suggests that the public of 2000-2001 approved of abortion only in certain circumstances, most of which were delineated in this bill, by a pretty solid ~55%. But these are good points, all; counter-intuitively, I've discovered that "pro-life" sentiment has only grown from 2001 to 2011, and the statistics appear to be more complex than this.

Again, there's a large difference between banning abortion to certain circumstances and giving citizenship to fetuses. As I've said, I don't see any real difference between this and the personhood movement, which most recently failed 58-42 in Mississippi IOTL. If Christian conservatives can't even get it enacted in Mississippi (losing by a landslide there in fact), you know that it's not exactly going to be popular nationwide.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
No arguments here Selencus~ I think I'll instead cover the Enron scandal for this time period, as I can't think of any factors that would prevent it for this timeline.
 
Caught up with this TL, still not buying your understanding of Designated Survivor rules which well predate the POV. And I find it hard to believe all 535 members of congress happened to attend the inauguration and be close enough to have been killed by the airplane. Ask yourself this, would then 98 year old Strom Thurmond, who by then was in a wheelchair have seriously gone? And that whole tibit of having congress meet in Federal Hall, while nice, is purely implausible. You need to remember the capitol is actually campus of a dozen buildings, you can't just uproot that infrastructure and stuff it all into a museum just for flag waving. The congress either has to stay in DC under heavy guard, or operate under extreme restrictions at an old facility like the Greenbrier, or Mt Weather which is where most of congress went on 9/11.

From there, this TL pretty much devolved into a Rumsfeldia clone right down to NASA privatization. If you wanted to do a Rumsfeldia in the 21st century TL you should have just made him the Designated Survivor for a Bush state of the union and have a plane come in and wipe out the capital. The story you have set up now is too clunky when the narrative led straight into a Rumsfeld Presidency, and the same effects on american culture would have still been prevalent (you also would have had a better shot at killing all of congress).

And ditto to what other reviewers brought up about the abortion ban, there's no real reason to pass something purely partisan like that when the idea you have written is for a rally around the flag congress. And things like the Iraq War as well as the court system are rushed, even in serious situations the courts and the military/state department/CIA do not work that fast. It took months to build up enough forces to go into Iraq both times IRL, you go from provocation to mission accomplished in less than a month.

If you do eventually decide on a reboot, I hope you'll take some of the criticisms I and others have given you to heart. I like the idea of a 21st century Rumsfeldia, but not in it's current form.
 
After a bit of searching, Strom Thurmond was attending parties on inauguration eve (source), so I'd be quite surprised if he didn't attend the actual inauguration.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Caught up with this TL, still not buying your understanding of Designated Survivor rules which well predate the POV. And I find it hard to believe all 535 members of congress happened to attend the inauguration and be close enough to have been killed by the airplane.

All members of Congress usually do attend the Presidential inauguration, and no absences were reported on that I could go off of.

Further, what would be a more realistic succession scenario?

Ask yourself this, would then 98 year old Strom Thurmond, who by then was in a wheelchair have seriously gone? And that whole tibit of having congress meet in Federal Hall, while nice, is purely implausible. You need to remember the capitol is actually campus of a dozen buildings, you can't just uproot that infrastructure and stuff it all into a museum just for flag waving.

Firstly, I thank Selenucus for doing the digging for the first part~

Secondly, the Federal Hall rarely has all of the members of Congress in it, because most sessions are now conducted via secure teleconferencing.

The congress either has to stay in DC under heavy guard, or operate under extreme restrictions at an old facility like the Greenbrier, or Mt Weather which is where most of congress went on 9/11.

In OTL, Congress got right back to work in the U.S. Capitol building, the President in the White House, and so on. This is because going into bunker-mode does nothing to reassure the people of the United States that its government is doing all that it can to handle the situation. Nonetheless, there are still security measures being taken, and the Federal Hall rarely sees most of the Congress assemble there.

From there, this TL pretty much devolved into a Rumsfeldia clone right down to NASA privatization.

I haven't read Rumsfeldia, but I understand that it's something of a heavy-handed dictatorship?

If you wanted to do a Rumsfeldia in the 21st century TL you should have just made him the Designated Survivor for a Bush state of the union and have a plane come in and wipe out the capital.

But the State of the Union address is difficult to plan around for terrorists because it doesn't happen on the same date at the same time right in the open, unlike the Presidential inauguration.

The story you have set up now is too clunky when the narrative led straight into a Rumsfeld Presidency, and the same effects on american culture would have still been prevalent (you also would have had a better shot at killing all of congress).

Clunky how?

And ditto to what other reviewers brought up about the abortion ban, there's no real reason to pass something purely partisan like that when the idea you have written is for a rally around the flag congress. And things like the Iraq War as well as the court system are rushed, even in serious situations the courts and the military/state department/CIA do not work that fast. It took months to build up enough forces to go into Iraq both times IRL, you go from provocation to mission accomplished in less than a month.

The United States invaded Afghanistan in less than a month after 9/11, while it had contingency plans to immediately strike Iraq through Operation Desert Badger if a scenario depicted in the timeline were to occur. The latter could then be re-purposed as a launch pad for invasion, which took roughly the same amount of time in this timeline as it did in OTL.


If you do eventually decide on a reboot, I hope you'll take some of the criticisms I and others have given you to heart. I like the idea of a 21st century Rumsfeldia, but not in it's current form.

Wouldn't I not make a 21st Century Rumsfeldia if I were to truly take your criticisms to heart?
 
Bill Graves was governor of Kansas in 2001, and he was a pretty moderate (think more business-friendly than social conservative) Republican; there's no way he'd have signed such a law (see e.g. here for him vetoing an abortion-restriction bill.)

Further, the Republicans didn't have the 2/3 House supermajority needed to overturn a veto in 2000. Looking at the election results (http://www.kssos.org/elections/elmpast/2kgwin1.html), Excel tells me that those are 79 Republicans and 46 Democrats, or 63%. Plus, a fair number of those were probably moderate Republicans who'd be reluctant to vote for it anyways.

So in short, you're not going to get this out of the 2000 Kansas legislature.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Bill Graves was governor of Kansas in 2001, and he was a pretty moderate (think more business-friendly than social conservative) Republican; there's no way he'd have signed such a law (see e.g. here for him vetoing an abortion-restriction bill.)

Further, the Republicans didn't have the 2/3 House supermajority needed to overturn a veto in 2000. Looking at the election results (http://www.kssos.org/elections/elmpast/2kgwin1.html), Excel tells me that those are 79 Republicans and 46 Democrats, or 63%. Plus, a fair number of those were probably moderate Republicans who'd be reluctant to vote for it anyways.

So in short, you're not going to get this out of the 2000 Kansas legislature.

Thank you for your continued constructive criticisms of the timeline; you have proven a very valuable source of guidance~ :)

I thus have changed the state to North Dakota, which has:

 
How was the economic fallout? More because the government was decapitated, or less because the casualties on Wallstreet were much less?
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Note to my readers: This is exams week and my hands are extremely full. I apologize for the lack of updates as of late, and I thank you for your continued interest and for over 10,000 views~ :)

How was the economic fallout? More because the government was decapitated, or less because the casualties on Wallstreet were much less?

There was more economic fallout, and some speculators believed that the credit of the United States itself was threatened. Nonetheless, much of the alarmist coverage was smothered by corporate fiat stateside, and the quick speed of the recovery as well as the underlying strength of the American economy before the attacks helped them to roll with the punches.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
No pressure at all, but are you planning to continue this timeline?

I'm sorry to say that I won't because the POD is implausible: January 20th had extremely low visibility in both New York City and Washington D.C.; I don't think they would have risked doing it that day or succeeded if they tried.

I also kind of got fatigued with it; thank you for your help though, and I'm glad to have gained experience in timeline making from this. =)
 
Last edited:
Top