What if 9/11 happened in 2003 or 2004?

Of course in terms of a Presidential term 2003 and 2004 are rather different.

If the outrage happened in 2003 it is possible that it would be a further blow to a deeply unpopular President. I think that without the September 11, 2001 atrocity Bush and Cheney would be politically dead by 2003.

Of course if the outrage happened in the fall of 2004 either GW Bush would have secured renomination, or decided not to seek it or have failed to obtain it.
 
Of course in terms of a Presidential term 2003 and 2004 are rather different.

If the outrage happened in 2003 it is possible that it would be a further blow to a deeply unpopular President. I think that without the September 11, 2001 atrocity Bush and Cheney would be politically dead by 2003.

Of course if the outrage happened in the fall of 2004 either GW Bush would have secured renomination, or decided not to seek it or have failed to obtain it.

Actually, George Bush may not have been wildly populr without 9/11, but I think that he might be held in higher regard today.
 
Actually, George Bush may not have been wildly populr without 9/11, but I think that he might be held in higher regard today.
9/11 Made Bush Plumb The Scale, Both High and Low ...

Without that Chance he'd Probably have Wound up Like his Father, an Oft-Remembered One-Term President ...

If he'd STILL Invaded Iraq though, as Suggested, then All Bets are Off!

:eek:
 
9/11 Made Bush Plumb The Scale, Both High and Low ...

Without that Chance he'd Probably have Wound up Like his Father, an Oft-Remembered One-Term President ...

If he'd STILL Invaded Iraq though, as Suggested, then All Bets are Off!

:eek:

I don't see Iraq as a possibility without 9/11, no matter what certain U.S. bureaucrats may or may not have wanted.
 
I don't see Iraq as a possibility without 9/11, no matter what certain U.S. bureaucrats may or may not have wanted.
Almost Certainly, Although it's AMAZING Just What The American People will Swallow Sometimes ...

Speaking of Which ...

Is it Too Early for Hillary Clinton to Run Against Either Bush or his Republican Replacement, Or are The Democrats Still Destined to be Saddled with John Kerry?

:eek:
 
Almost Certainly, Although it's AMAZING Just What The American People will Swallow Sometimes ...

Speaking of Which ...

Is it Too Early for Hillary Clinton to Run Against Either Bush or his Republican Replacement, Or are The Democrats Still Destined to be Saddled with John Kerry?

:eek:

It's too early for Clinton IMO. She was elected in 2000 to the Senate and would be seeking the U.S. presidency in 2004. Interestingly, she would have, if elected President in 2004 in such a TL, have served as long in the Senate as Barack Obama will have in our TL if he is nominated and wins in 2008. Unlike Obama, however, Clinton carries with her the baggage of her husband's years in power.
 
Of course in terms of a Presidential term 2003 and 2004 are rather different.

If the outrage happened in 2003 it is possible that it would be a further blow to a deeply unpopular President. I think that without the September 11, 2001 atrocity Bush and Cheney would be politically dead by 2003.

Of course if the outrage happened in the fall of 2004 either GW Bush would have secured renomination, or decided not to seek it or have failed to obtain it.

I just don´t see why Bush should be very unpopular in 2003/04. Without a 9/11 recession the economy will be in good shape. If congress has a democratic majority after 2002, it would help Bush like it helped Clinton after 1994. The people would see him as an entertaining good-weather-president. There would be no real reason for him to be unpopular.
 
Top