What if 9/11 never happened: Does Bush get reelected?

Honestly, with no 9/11 its impossible to say whether or not Iraq would have been invaded. On the one hand, Cheney and Rumsfeld were dead set on some kind of action against Saddam even before 9/11; on the other, by all accounts 9/11 radically altered the power dynamics of the Bush cabinet (and apparently did a real number on Cheney's psychology and outlook), so without that we might see more level headed figures like Colin Powell push back against any kind of direct action. Odds are we'd see the no-fly zone remain, more covert action to foment a kind of "group up" regime change, and an outside possibility of a push for a UN-backed intervention ala the first Gulf War.

This is the closest to the truth IMHO. Bill Clinton wanted Saddam gone and when he booted the inspectors even considered an ODF on steroids or conventional invasion to try to collapse the regime. Bush wanted Saddam gone as well before 911, but without 70%+ support as in Saddam doing something stupid like trying to annex Jordan or plotting some strike somewhere as happened in 1993 or some other stupidity I don't see him going all in for Gulf War II.

Bush didn't come into office trying to be a foreign policy President and foreign policy wise up to 911 the biggest issue for him was China. Also, any war not supported by the liberal interventionist wing in the US represented by the likes of Clinton and others Bush isn't going to be going along with.
 
Last edited:
If we consider that the PoD that eliminates 9/11 is not something like Osama bin Laden dies, a large scale similar plan eventually happens. Now, being in Sept 2001, only 8 months into his presidency Bush was able to spin it as being Clinton's fault that a terrorist attack occured on a Republican administration watch. What if a big attack occurs instead say... October 2003. Close enough to primary season to mean Dems decide national security is main issue, they can attack with "In 3 years Bush took away Clinton's surplus, our good economy, and now our safety with reckless policies and inattention due to his inexperience". You had instead of less than one season of anti-Bush shows like "that's my Bush" you have 3 seasons, SNL skits, and more time for "Bushisms" to happen prior to the attack. A repetition of what happened to Ford (and later Palin) people confuse Bush as the character and not what he really acted like or said. I think the "rally 'round the president" effect will be less when it happens closer to an election rather than just after one.
 
If we consider that the PoD that eliminates 9/11 is not something like Osama bin Laden dies, a large scale similar plan eventually happens. Now, being in Sept 2001, only 8 months into his presidency Bush was able to spin it as being Clinton's fault that a terrorist attack occured on a Republican administration watch. What if a big attack occurs instead say... October 2003. Close enough to primary season to mean Dems decide national security is main issue, they can attack with "In 3 years Bush took away Clinton's surplus, our good economy, and now our safety with reckless policies and inattention due to his inexperience". You had instead of less than one season of anti-Bush shows like "that's my Bush" you have 3 seasons, SNL skits, and more time for "Bushisms" to happen prior to the attack. A repetition of what happened to Ford (and later Palin) people confuse Bush as the character and not what he really acted like or said. I think the "rally 'round the president" effect will be less when it happens closer to an election rather than just after one.
Unfortunately.
Now, just how bad the attack was and where it happened would matter a lot.
 
Unfortunately.
Now, just how bad the attack was and where it happened would matter a lot.
Exactly. No offence to the rest of the nation, but the density of population for the kind of casualities seen on 9/11 do not occur outside the Northeast corridor, an attack on Houston or Atlanta does not affect as many people directly or indirectly as 9/11 OTL. In Poli Sci you learn two things affect a person's emotions about an event- number of casualities and how far removed. A flood in New Orelans killing 100 s is felt deaper in the US than an earthquake in Turkey killing thousands for instance.
 
Unfortunately.
Now, just how bad the attack was and where it happened would matter a lot.
Exactly. No offence to the rest of the nation, but the density of population for the kind of casualities seen on 9/11 do not occur outside the Northeast corridor, an attack on Houston or Atlanta does not affect as many people directly or indirectly as 9/11 OTL. In Poli Sci you learn two things affect a person's emotions about an event- number of casualities and how far removed. A flood in New Orelans killing 100 s is felt deaper in the US than an earthquake in Turkey killing thousands for instance.
 
Don't forget about the anthrax attacks in 2001, which targeted democratic leaders and media figures perceived to be left-leaning. With things like Oklahoma City and the anthrax mailings, any discussion about terrorism will likely be focused on homegrown right-wing extremism.

Now, AQ is escalating at this point, so if 9/11 gets stopped ahead of time, as said, they'll try something else, likely around 2003 or so.
 
I think this thread will die out on the unsolvable divide between:

Those who believe an Iraq War is inevitable due to the US electing Dubya;

and

Those who say that MINUS 9/11 + Afghanistan there's no way even Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and Rove (1) will be able to beat the war drums loud enough to get a majority of the Congress to give the OK. Remember that it was "mushroom clouds" talk that pushed us over the edge. But without the memory of 9/11, would that scare tactic work? And if the war is "delayed", could Saddam's failing health result in a collapse and Iraqi civil war instead?

1) Oh yeah, and Dubya
 
If we consider that the PoD that eliminates 9/11 is not something like Osama bin Laden dies, a large scale similar plan eventually happens. Now, being in Sept 2001, only 8 months into his presidency Bush was able to spin it as being Clinton's fault that a terrorist attack occured on a Republican administration watch.

The only one Bush ever blamed was the terrorists not Clinton, frankly he didn't do 'I inherented a terrorism from Clinton'. You can find some talking heads who might have said it, but he and the public at least until Trutherism explodeded (and it really did) blame the terrorists full stop.

And if the war is "delayed", could Saddam's failing health result in a collapse and Iraqi civil war instead?

You mean Iraq becoming a radicalizing mess? It was already there. You mean another Shia uprising occurring? It was due. But, it would turn Iraq into modern Syria on super steroids and yah empower jihadists and Shia Islamic Radicals as the Syrian civil war has if it bogs down which it would if we provide the uprising air support which we probably would under the whole no fly zone.
 
Last edited:
The only one Bush ever blamed was the terrorists not Clinton, frankly he didn't do 'I inherented a terrorism from Clinton'. You can find some talking heads who might have said it, but he and the public at least until Trutherism explodeded (and it really did) blame the terrorists full stop.



You mean Iraq becoming a radicalizing mess? It was already there. You mean another Shia uprising occurring? It was due. But, it would turn Iraq into modern Syria on super steroids and yah empower jihadists and Shia Islamic Radicals as the Syrian civil war has if it bogs down which it would if we provide the uprising air support which we probably would under the whole no fly zone.
Those talking heads were not coming up with it on their own. Those were administration talking points. It came from the White House. As Truman said- the buck stops here", so yes, it is appropriate to say Bush blamed it on Clinton, that was the administration defence and his campaign's defence in 2004. One he cannot use in an ATL where the attack is late 2003. Dont be a Republican apologist.
 
Those talking heads were not coming up with it on their own. Those were administration talking points. It came from the White House. As Truman said- the buck stops here", so yes, it is appropriate to say Bush blamed it on Clinton, that was the administration defence and his campaign's defence in 2004. One he cannot use in an ATL where the attack is late 2003. Dont be a Republican apologist.

Yah, no, it wasn't the normal talking talking heads that get talking heads from team Bush on the cable news nets. The Bush's and Clinton's were united as hell after 911 as was most of the country.

You forget how united the mainstream of the Democratic and Republican Party was after 911 and the Clinton's and Bush's were the mainstream. National unity for the first year or two after 911 was something not seen in decade and it was based off of a common enemy which was for once not each other and came from the establishment of both parties.

Column-How-911-changed-religion-in-America-ISC3J6J-x-large.jpg


Welcome to 2001 America.

It was the likes of Rush and others on mainly talk radio who would find a way to blame Clinton's or democrats if an asteroid hit. These talking heads that the RNC doesn't have much influence over which heavily sprang up in the 80s and moreso in the 90s which are now costing the party.
 
Last edited:
Yah, no, it wasn't the normal talking talking heads that get talking heads from team Bush on the cable news nets. The Bush's and Clinton's were united as hell after 911 as was most of the country.

You forget how united the mainstream of the Democratic and Republican Party was after 911 and the Clinton's and Bush's were the mainstream. National unity for the first year or two after 911 was something not seen in decade and it was based off of a common enemy which was for once not each other and came from the establishment of both parties.

It was the likes of Rush and others on mainly talk radio who would find a way to blame Clinton's or democrats if an asteroid hit. These talking heads that the RNC doesn't have much influence over which heavily sprang up in the 80s and moreso in the 90s which are now costing the party.
Wow, not going to discuss this if you dont have facts straight and understand what year we are talking about. We are talking about the 2004 election and how Bush used 9/11.
 
Wow, not going to discuss this if you dont have facts straight and understand what year we are talking about. We are talking about the 2004 election and how Bush used 9/11.

Bush used 911 as a rallying point as the example of his leadership, but in terms of blaming democrats or Clinton for the attack sorry that is hogwash. Rove promoted some ugly things during the election perhaps even making sure Kerry's old Vietnam Vet foes (who showed up at his previous elections as well) and will always have an ax to grind because of his speech before the Senate arguing US troops raped and pillaged managed to get a national level spotlight.

But, I watched the 2004 campaign closely the notion that 911 was the fault of the Clinton WH was not pushed by anyone other then the fringe that team Bush had about as much control over as Democrats have control over the 911 Truthers.
 
Last edited:
Yah, no, it wasn't the normal talking talking heads that get talking heads from team Bush on the cable news nets. The Bush's and Clinton's were united as hell after 911 as was most of the country.

True, but things started to fray in terms of national unity when the demands for an Iraq war started from the Neo-Cons that were running things in the Bush WH.

You forget how united the mainstream of the Democratic and Republican Party was after 911 and the Clinton's and Bush's were the mainstream. National unity for the first year or two after 911 was something not seen in decade and it was based off of a common enemy which was for once not each other and came from the establishment of both parties.

Column-How-911-changed-religion-in-America-ISC3J6J-x-large.jpg


Welcome to 2001 America.

Agreed.

It was the likes of Rush and others on mainly talk radio who would find a way to blame Clinton's or democrats if an asteroid hit. These talking heads that the RNC doesn't have much influence over which heavily sprang up in the 80s and moreso in the 90s which are now costing the party.

Indeed. When you add on the virulence created by the Teabaggers (one cannot claim that that is an created by the Dems, I've seen them with protest signs with tea bags hanging from them) and the effects of Citizens United on Republican primaries (goodbye Eric Cantor)...? You have now the situation where the tail very much wags the dog.

Wow, not going to discuss this if you dont have facts straight and understand what year we are talking about. We are talking about the 2004 election and how Bush used 9/11.

Now now. Talking about events 2001-2003 is OK. Its talking about setting up the table for 2004 and possible alternate outcomes.

Bush used 911 as a rallying point as the example of his leadership, but in terms of blaming democrats or Clinton for the attack sorry that is hogwash.

Is this grammar right?

Rove promoted some ugly things during the election perhaps even making sure Kerry's old Vietnam Vet foes (who showed up at his previous elections as well) and will always have an ax to grind because of his speech before the Senate arguing US troops raped and pillaged managed to get a national level spotlight.

SOME of his old Vietnam fellow veterans. He had plenty of support from many veterans, so Rove cynically cherry-picked swift boat veterans who served at the same time as Kerry did. It was a triumph of the Orwellian slogan "Ignorance is strength" that his scheme worked. "SWIFT BOAT POLITICAL HACKS FOR TRUTH!" While voters were distracted by the "issue" of whether Kerry was on a particular river for a specific combat action on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, the FACT that a number of these so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" giving eyewitness testimony against him never served with Kerry and were nowhere near the battle in question were mostly ignored by the media. The very term "Swift Boating" has become a synonym for underhanded FALSE political attacks has left a lasting memory of Rove's tactics.

But, I watched the 2004 campaign closely the notion that 911 was the fault of the Clinton WH was not pushed by anyone other then the fringe that team Bush had about as much control over as Democrats have control over the 911 Truthers.

Only if you count Fox News as part of that fringe. They were doing verbal and logical handsprings to put in the minds of the American public that the attacks on 9/11 really happened on Inauguration Day 2001.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I think Bush would wait until 2005 for the Iraq War so it won't look like a political ploy, if he does it at all.
The timetable would need to allow it. Do you propose butterflying the U.N. weapons inspections?
I don't see it. If Congressional Democrats really saw her as an exalted savior who'd be guaranteed their endorsements under normal circumstances, then they'd also assume she could handle Gary Hart 2: Electric Boogaloo. And yes, she'd vote the way that the Clinton Administration foreign policy team thought was best, and they also thought we needed to be harder on Saddam. And Wellstone isn't someone I take too seriously as a candidate, just as an example that there were quite a few Democratic Senators who opposed the Iraq War and would have reservations about Clinton because of her vote.

And boring white liberal senators are going to cancel out one another against a candidate who is well connected and has near total name ID.

Not enough so for Hillarycare 2.0 to seem possible. It's pretty clear listening to her campaigning that she's still shaken by the original's failure to some extent today. You'll notice that her health care plans now build upon Obamacare, and in 2008 the debate was driven to a large extent by John Edwards.
Eh, the ACA is more like what Hillary ran on in 2008 than it is like what Obama the candidate had proposed. Indeed, the latter was among those arguing that an insurance mandate was probably unconstitutional. As the current Democratic nominee likes to say Obamacare is Hillarycare.

In 2008, her opponent was someone who was even faster racing to the Presidency. In 2004, she might face Howard Dean, who'd been a Governor for over ten years, or, I dunno, someone like John Kerry or Joe Biden who'd been in the Senate for decades. She'd be the one in a hurry, is the point. And by the same token, she'd have a harder time playing an experience card.

We're talking about a candidate now who, despite having been Secretary of State, highlights a speech she gave in China as first lady in making her case for being president. That she's not really running on her record as Secretary of State suggests that it's not that important. Besides, unlike Dean, Kerry, or Biden(who did not run in 2004 historically), she's actually lived in the White House.
 
And in a no 9/11 timeline, foreign policy expertise is much less important. OTL everyone had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 by claiming to be able to deal with the challenges of terrorism. In the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11, neither the 1996 nor 2000 elections talked about foreign affairs much at all. The defeat of GHWB only a couple years after an overwhelming victory in Iraq had solidified the popular notion that "it's the economy, stupid" as the driver for elections, and in that light, Hillary's career as FLOTUS and senator seems perfectly adequate.

Of course, whether or not she runs depends on whether, in 2003, she thinks Bush will be vulnerable in a year's time (and also on whether Al Gore runs; OTL he was seen as the frontrunner until he declared he had no interest in the race, and she may not want to pick that fight).
 
And in a no 9/11 timeline, foreign policy expertise is much less important. OTL everyone had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 by claiming to be able to deal with the challenges of terrorism. In the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11, neither the 1996 nor 2000 elections talked about foreign affairs much at all. The defeat of GHWB only a couple years after an overwhelming victory in Iraq had solidified the popular notion that "it's the economy, stupid" as the driver for elections, and in that light, Hillary's career as FLOTUS and senator seems perfectly adequate.

Of course, whether or not she runs depends on whether, in 2003, she thinks Bush will be vulnerable in a year's time (and also on whether Al Gore runs; OTL he was seen as the frontrunner until he declared he had no interest in the race, and she may not want to pick that fight).

Here is the thing you wipe away 911 you have to explain why. As long as terrorism had safe bases in the Middle East, especially but not limited to Afghanistan, northern Iraq and Pakistan it was going to become a big issue last decade. Not as big an issue without a spectacular attack that shocks the whole country, but it was going to be an issue without an early 90s POD.

Same for Saddam that it requires a POD in the 90s to keep him from being a big foreign policy issue because we had a cease fire demanding weapons inspections that Saddam was violating and he came to love his image as the great leader standing up to the US.
 
Last edited:
Here is the thing you wipe away 911 you have to explain why. As long as terrorism had safe bases in the Middle East, especially but not limited to Afghanistan, northern Iraq and Pakistan it was going to become a big issue last decade. Not as big an issue without a spectacular attack that shocks the whole country, but it was going to be an issue without an early 90s POD.

Same for Saddam that it requires a POD in the 90s to keep him from being a big foreign policy issue because we had a cease fire demanding weapons inspections that Saddam was violating and he came to love his image as the great leader standing up to the US.
Some truth to that, but remember that despite terrorist attacks on (off the top of my head) the World Trade Center (not 9/11, the 1993 one), the Khobar Towers (1996; this one was probably Hezbollah, not Al Qaeda), the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998) and the USS Cole (October 2000, within a month of the election itself), terrorism wasn't a major political issue in the 2000 election. Rather famously, when Clinton did launch missile strikes against alleged Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, he was accused of trying to distract attention from the then-ongoing Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. So terrorism and international affairs were much less on people's radar in those days; the situation probably continues like that; as long as the attacks remain small or overseas, they make news for a day or two, maybe prompt a cruise missile strike, and then are mostly forgotten in the popular imagination. My assumption is that the POD is the 9/11 attacks get foiled at some point before they happen, and the conspiracy is quickly forgotten in more or less the same way that the equally audacious foiled millennium plots were. There may be another 9/11-level terrorist attack (probably will be, at some point, as Osama will keep trying), but it won't happen until after the 2004 elections, and is thus irrelevant to this thread.

As for Saddam Hussein? He's managed more or less the same way he was during the Clinton Administration: continued enforcement of the no-fly zone, covert aid to people like Chalabi, and sanctions (there was some talk in the Bush administration early on of modifying the sanctions to allow more humanitarian aid; 9/11 and the lead-up to the Iraq War scuttled that idea). He's not an active threat to the US, and no one cares about what he has to say, as he was despised by the West (for obvious reasons), his neighbors (most of whom he'd tried to invade at some point) and the Islamists (who viewed him both as a secular near-apostate, and as a pathetic loser), while he wasn't stupid enough to try another invasion after seeing what happened in the Gulf War. He might get name-checked during the debates as an example of a generic foreign "bad guy," but there's no reason to believe he'll be a major political issue.

If we look at the 2000 campaign, Bush's main focus for his first term likely would be domestic policy, with tax cuts, the Medicare Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind, and similar policies being implemented. Without the "rally round the flag" effect of 9/11, 2002 is probably a traditional midterm where the president's party loses seats, so he probably continues to face a Democratic Senate, which will limit what he can and can't pass domestically, but there are still plenty of conservative and moderate Democrats who can be convinced to compromise; without the Iraq War and the increased partisanship it brought, both parties are likely much less ideologically unified. So expect continued efforts to achieve conservative goals with compromise legislation, in much the same way that NCLB was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy. There's likely some attempt at bipartisan immigration reform as well, which seems more likely to pass in this environment, while Social Security privatization is still DOA.
 
Some truth to that, but remember that despite terrorist attacks on (off the top of my head) the World Trade Center (not 9/11, the 1993 one), the Khobar Towers (1996; this one was probably Hezbollah, not Al Qaeda), the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998) and the USS Cole (October 2000, within a month of the election itself), terrorism wasn't a major political issue in the 2000 election. Rather famously, when Clinton did launch missile strikes against alleged Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, he was accused of trying to distract attention from the then-ongoing Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment.

I more or less agree with you as long as its happening 'over there' as in terrorism stays in the Middle East and North Africa you will see American stay asleep to it. But, once it starts happening in Western cities and that was inevitable in time with them having a safe bases to launch attacks then the Western public's will take notice and want something done about it.

While Bin Laden in 2001 was focused on the U.S. homeland, Zarqawi was focused on hitting Germany as seen on the link and other European cities like Spain and France. They like AQ and IS today were two separate groups back then after a 1998 schism and of course they are two separate groups again.

Its possible without 911 that transnational terrorism first starts to be seen as a European problem by Americans as the first of their strikes outside the Middle East and North Africa might be there until America gets hit.

But, yes Bush planned a domestic centered agenda, however the world doesn't always comport with you plans. With Western resources not focused on dealing with terrorism when it had safe bases there are going to be alot more global strikes and they are going to be more successful for awhile.

If you wipe away 911 by making sure another faction other then the Taliban come out on top in Afghanistan now that has big repercussions as it really would delay transnational terrorism from becoming a thing for at least a decade or more.
 

missouribob

Banned
That runs the risk of it not happening, since he couldn't be assured of re-election.
Not trying to necro this thread.

(Is 4 months to long? What the hell is the brightline for threads anyway?)

Just wanted to point out that even if not reelected there would be nothing to stop him from invading in those months between the election and inauguration. Regardless of if it was his inauguration or not...
 
Top