What if 9/11 happened three years later?

[usertron2020]

He said America was "reaping the fruits of their crimes against humanity," but I can't recall or find reference to some kind of official 9/11 block party. You may be thinking of Palestine.

Could be. I'm somewhat sure I saw something on this recently, though.

I remember candlelight vigils being held for the 911 victims by Palestinian children on the West Bank. I'm not so sure about Gaza, though.

 

[Dave Howery]

I agree that Bush is likely to be a 1 term president. Even before 9/11, the economy was declining (especially airlines), and no 9/11 is not going to affect that. So he will be a president in charge of a time of economic malaise (especially when compared to the Clinton years), whose term ends on a spectacular terrorist attack. In OTL, Bush got a bit of a pass on responsibility for 9/11, since he hadn't even been in office for a year yet, and the attack had obviously been in planning for longer than that. In this scenario, it would all be on his shoulders...

 

[usertron2020]

I agree that Bush is likely to be a 1 term president. Even before 9/11, the economy was declining (especially airlines), and no 9/11 is not going to affect that. So he will be a president in charge of a time of economic malaise (especially when compared to the Clinton years), whose term ends on a spectacular terrorist attack. In OTL, Bush got a bit of a pass on responsibility for 9/11, since he hadn't even been in office for a year yet, and the attack had obviously been in planning for longer than that. In this scenario, it would all be on his shoulders...

I would not be too sure of that, at least among Republicans. Remember how in the Fox News Bubble they spent eight long years and the 2008 campaign blaming the disastrous W economy on the fact that the economy had begun a slight economic downtick just before Clinton left office? "Bush inherited the Clinton Economy" was a mantra they kept going the whole way through, which helps partially explain why Fox lost pretty much its entire non-Republican audience.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

I would not be too sure of that, at least among Republicans. Remember how in the Fox News Bubble they spent eight long years and the 2008 campaign blaming the disastrous W economy on the fact that the economy had begun a slight economic downtick just before Clinton left office? "Bush inherited the Clinton Economy" was a mantra they kept going the whole way through, which helps partially explain why Fox lost pretty much its entire non-Republican audience.

Fox said that? Ironic considering their criticism of Obama for his statements about "inheriting the Bush economy".

I agree with Meadow in that Bush would be regarded as a Jimmy Carter of sorts, especially if he failed to notice three extra years of warning for some reason and he takes as many vacations. At least in OTL the Republicans could claim to shift some blame to Clinton and not get laughed at. He may get some sympathy at first, but the true facts could make for a nasty "October Surprise".

 

[usertron2020]

Fox said that? Ironic considering their criticism of Obama for his statements about "inheriting the Bush economy".

Oh yes, they said that. I don't blame you for not knowing, though. You'd have to either watch Fox (ugh) or view the various internet/youtube watchdog groups like Mediamatters. Though in defense of our Republicans on AH.com, I will say that the biggest purveyor of the "Clinton Recession" Myth, Sean Hannity, has been called the biggest douche on Fox News by even our most strident conservative members. Sometimes somebody can be so "on your side", that they leave you embarrassed that they in your party.

I agree with Meadow in that Bush would be regarded as a Jimmy Carter of sorts, especially if he failed to notice three extra years of warning for some reason and he takes as many vacations. At least in OTL the Republicans could claim to shift some blame to Clinton and not get laughed at. He may get some sympathy at first, but the true facts could make for a nasty "October Surprise".

If W were continuing to have "Saddam on the brain" throughout his presidency, as he did pre-911, and treating UBL as very much a back-burner issue (read, he doesn't earn him as many votes and didn't try to kill W's daddy), AND the American People have enough time to digest what has happened while at the same time Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hate Radio, and Fox News haven't had sufficient to spin the attack?

I wonder how much the 2004 election would be effected by who the Democratic nominee would be? I think at least Edwards would have self-destructed anyway. Beyond that, I think that Kerry would have swift-boated BUSH!

I remember one of the VERY few even very limited attacks against W made by one of the Big Two on Fox, Bill O'Reilly, going like this: "If there is a second 911 attack on Bush's watch, he's done! He'll be down there with Buchanan and Grant!" (1) Of course, Sean Hannity would have refused to allow that question to even be addressed on his show.

1) As typical for O'Reilly's hazy view of history, he doesn't know that Grant has jumped from the bottom 15% to middle-of-the-pack, as Grant in the most recent decennial historical review of US presidents has finally been given credit as America's finest civil rights president between Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson.

 

[Orville_third]

By the time Bush did invade Iraq U.S. public support for doing so had dropped a fair bit from the 2001 high in the U.S. for doing so, Bush to convince the UN to join him had ended up inadvertently giving himself a major black mark that will long haunt him the false notion that Bush lied about WMDs (being wrong isn't the same thing as lying) and he let the Republican Guard and Zarqawi in 2002 plan for an insurgency which they very much did while our planning was half hazard of a post invasion Iraq and badly undermined by too many cooks in the kitchen fighting over Iraq policy.

It should be noted that the Iraqui Government said there were no WMDs, the inspectors said they could find no WMDs, the major US source in the Iraqui government said there were no WMDs, Saddam's own son inn law told the UN (leaked 2003) and CNN (broadcast 1995) that the WMDs were all destroyed.

I'd say any claims of WMD by ANYONE were ignorance- or, if they had intel briefings (as both Executive and Legislative Branch officials did), flat lies.

Alas, nobody has the courage to file criminal charges against them.

I agree that Bush is likely to be a 1 term president. Even before 9/11, the economy was declining (especially airlines), and no 9/11 is not going to affect that. So he will be a president in charge of a time of economic malaise (especially when compared to the Clinton years), whose term ends on a spectacular terrorist attack. In OTL, Bush got a bit of a pass on responsibility for 9/11, since he hadn't even been in office for a year yet, and the attack had obviously been in planning for longer than that. In this scenario, it would all be on his shoulders...

Let's not forget the aftermath of Florida (and, though most everyone forgot beforehand, South Carolina). Bush already was unpopular.
As for who would run against him, can anyone say rematch?

 

[usertron2020]

It should be noted that the Iraqui Government said there were no WMDs, the inspectors said they could find no WMDs, the major US source in the Iraqui government said there were no WMDs, Saddam's own son inn law told the UN (leaked 2003) and CNN (broadcast 1995) that the WMDs were all destroyed.

I'd say any claims of WMD by ANYONE were ignorance- or, if they had intel briefings (as both Executive and Legislative Branch officials did), flat lies.

Alas, nobody has the courage to file criminal charges against them.

Would I be correct in assuming that neither W nor Rumsfeld nor Cheney have left the USA since Obama was sworn in?

 

[Dave Howery]

I would not be too sure of that, at least among Republicans. Remember how in the Fox News Bubble they spent eight long years and the 2008 campaign blaming the disastrous W economy on the fact that the economy had begun a slight economic downtick just before Clinton left office? "Bush inherited the Clinton Economy" was a mantra they kept going the whole way through, which helps partially explain why Fox lost pretty much its entire non-Republican audience.

well, there's the Fox News world and then there's the real world. Fox might blame the attacks on Clinton, but the average American is going to put the blame squarely on Bush... since the attack is happening in the last year of his term...