What If 9-11 Attacks Took Place Exactly One Year Earlier?

I've heard this is considered by lots of Clinton and Gore staffers to be one of the great "what ifs" they dwell on.

Same attacks on Sept. 11th, 2000 instead of 2001.

1) Surge of support for the Clinton Admin. results in easy Al Gore victory over George W. Bush.

2) President Clinton spends the last four months of his presidency responding to the attacks by destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan and perhaps even killing Osama Bin Laden.

3) Clinton leaves office with a 90% approval rate with historians consistently ranking him among the top five presidents in history.

4) Al Gore loses his bid for reelection in 2004 as that is very often the fate of presidents who come after a popular two termer from the same party.
 
Interesting

I think its an interesting premise, but I've got two issues with this:

2. Why do you think Clinton would be so much more successful in this than Bush was?

3. This is more likely to affect public, rather than historians', opinions of Clinton, as historians tend to already rate him quite highly (he's 8th in the 2015 APSA poll) and probably wouldn't be swayed by one event no matter how popular.

The public perception of Clinton, however, would be much more different and you'd probably see him take on a much more pronounced role as party elder afterwards (regardless of whether Gore wins or loses). IDK, but maybe this butterflies Obama and Hillary (a rise in his popularity would probably change public perception of her) as candidates in favor of more "Clinton-model" Dems?
 
I disagree. This could severely damage Clinton, especially after the cruise missile strikes in Sudan. Republicans would most likely make political hay over the attacks- and unlike OTL, the 9/11 congressional investigations would be more than a formality. Of course, given how both McCain and Bush would be favoring more Mideast involvement, the candidates who may benefit are Buchanan and Nader.
 
The investigations will show in 2000 that the various US Intel services aren't sharing info that would have given them enough clues to see what AlQ was planning against the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the White House..

The investigators will probably lay blame to the Clinton Administration for allowing and fostering such institutional unwillingness to share info that would have prevented these attacks...
 
  1. 3. This is more likely to affect public, rather than historians', opinions of Clinton, as historians tend to already rate him quite highly (he's 8th in the 2015 APSA poll) and probably wouldn't be swayed by one event no matter how popular.

    ?
Can you post a link to this?
 
I disagree. This could severely damage Clinton, especially after the cruise missile strikes in Sudan. Republicans would most likely make political hay over the attacks- and unlike OTL, the 9/11 congressional investigations would be more than a formality. Of course, given how both McCain and Bush would be favoring more Mideast involvement, the candidates who may benefit are Buchanan and Nader.

Sorry, I don't see how the attacks would harm Clinton. Clinton is probably one of, if not the best, retail politicians of all time, and he would make George Bush's Bullhorn Address (whatever you think about the man's presidency, that is some masterful political theater) look like a third grade presentation. There'd probably be some tough questions to answer in six months-to-a-year, but the immediate aftermath would see a surge of popularity for Clinton, and Gore by proxy.

And seriously, Republicans trying to make hay over the attacks would be an incredibly boneheaded move. By 2000, the Republicans in Congress had totally shot its bolt when it came to attacking Clinton. The entire Lewinsky affair was, in short, a fiasco for them, and Gingrich's stunts had damaged their brand significantly. The idea that they'd both a) attack the President after an attack as catastrophic as 9/11 (assuming that the attack is relatively unchanged aside from the year it occurs in) and b) win over the American people by doing so is farcical.
 
Different Pres, Different Strategy?

I've heard this is considered by lots of Clinton and Gore staffers to be one of the great "what ifs" they dwell on.

Same attacks on Sept. 11th, 2000 instead of 2001.

1) Surge of support for the Clinton Admin. results in easy Al Gore victory over George W. Bush.

2) President Clinton spends the last four months of his presidency responding to the attacks by destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan and perhaps even killing Osama Bin Laden.

3) Clinton leaves office with a 90% approval rate with historians consistently ranking him among the top five presidents in history.

4) Al Gore loses his bid for reelection in 2004 as that is very often the fate of presidents who come after a popular two termer from the same party.

The question of why you think Clinton would be so much more effective leads me to wonder what he did different to Bush.

Two different men with the same problem but different ways of thinking and advisers might well lead to them taking different approaches.

So the question: How much flexibility was there in handling 9/11? As in a serious response, not just picking away with a few cruise missiles. A limited cruise missile stonk would trigger massive criticism of being purely for show, especially with presidential candidates wanting to look like tough guys.

The overthrow of Taliban happened quickly enough that there has to have been a preexisting contingency plan. If Clinton goes with that the question 'What next?' comes up. If something else what and why?

Lets get our imaginations going people. Do you have a workable - physically and politically - alternative to how Bush handled Afghanistan post 9/11? If so what is it?

Follow up question: What would you expect Clinton to set up for the next president as a 'we have Afghanistan, now what the hell do we do with it?' plan?
 
I thought Clinton would be focused more on Bin Laden and thus might be able to get him as Bush's critics have long maintained (that Bush lost focus on Bin Laden).

Honestly aside from killing Bin Laden how is Clinton more successful than President Bush?
 

jahenders

Banned
I think we might well see another weak Clinton response. He threatens Afghanistan if they don't turn over Osama. Clinton's already weak sauce in their eyes, so they don't. He shoots a bunch of cruise missiles and they laugh.

Eventually Clinton does invade, but he doesn't provide the necessary strength and it goes poorly until the strength has to be increased again and again.


I thought Clinton would be focused more on Bin Laden and thus might be able to get him as Bush's critics have long maintained (that Bush lost focus on Bin Laden).

Honestly aside from killing Bin Laden how is Clinton more successful than President Bush?
 
Top