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.