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

I had the understanding that short of the uppermost remote NE tip of Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance) the Taliban had complete control of the country. Then again, considering the complete pig's breakfast (irony intentional) the Taliban made of A-Stan in terms of trying to actually run a real government (as opposed to being just a religious terror/police force), IMVHO they didn't really WANT to run the country. That's why they so perfectly coordinated the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance, followed by the very next day a nationwide evacuation of all cities, towns, military centers, and Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps, and THEN on the very next day after THAT follow up with 9/11!

No. By this time the Taliban had already been "absorbed" into Al Qaeda. And the likes of bin Laden and Al Zawahiri had no interest whatsoever in worrying about little details like the maintenance of essential public works (like water works and sewage systems). During the Soviet occupation, while the men were doing all the fighting it was left to the women to perform these jobs. And if it came to a choice, people like Mullah Omar would much rather risk an outbreak of cholera:eek: than have women be allowed to leave their homes without a male escort. Irony intended. I wonder how many Afghan women hired professional male escorts:evilsmile: so that they could go to their jobs?:happyblush
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Hey everyone, I'm new here and it's my first post. I'm kind of learning, so be easy lol.


I don't know if this has been covered, but what does everyone think would happen if 9/11 never happened? How would it effect our National Security going forward? Would an event like 9/11 happen later on? Also, would Bush get reelected again? I don't think he would, I think 9/11 and the way he responded is the big thing that kept him in office.
IMHO, it's a tossup; however, I'd put the odds slightly in favor of him being re-elected. Basically, I think that the recovering U.S. economy should be enough to put Bush over the top--though Bush's overall economic record combined with liberals' continuing anger at Bush v. Gore would probably make it a close--indeed, perhaps a very close--race.
 
IMHO, it's a tossup; however, I'd put the odds slightly in favor of him being re-elected. Basically, I think that the recovering U.S. economy should be enough to put Bush over the top--though Bush's overall economic record combined with liberals' continuing anger at Bush v. Gore would probably make it a close--indeed, perhaps a very close--race.
15,000 votes the other way in SW Ohio and Kerry wins. OTOH, that's like saying 15,000 votes the other way in Tallahassee and Kerry wins.:rolleyes:
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think you're correct that it was around 100K votes that decided Ohio, with that said, that's still close.
Yes, but it's 3 times less close than Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in 2016 and almost 10 times less close than Michigan was in 2016.
 
Yes, but it's 3 times less close than Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in 2016 and almost 10 times less close than Michigan was in 2016.
Still, flip those 100K votes, Kerry wins the election. That to me says a lot about Bush considering the economy wasn't in the pits (the recovery was similar to the weak, uneven one Obama presided over though) and considering the wars (yes even Iraq) were still somewhat popular.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Still, flip those 100K votes, Kerry wins the election. That to me says a lot about Bush considering the economy wasn't in the pits (the recovery was similar to the weak, uneven one Obama presided over though) and considering the wars (yes even Iraq) were still somewhat popular.
Iraq might have already began hurting Bush by late 2004, though.
 
Still, flip those 100K votes, Kerry wins the election. That to me says a lot about Bush considering the economy wasn't in the pits (the recovery was similar to the weak, uneven one Obama presided over though) and considering the wars (yes even Iraq) were still somewhat popular.

To this day, other than the length nobody in America is criticizing the Afghan War (They started it after all). And other than with constitutional issues with how its being done (ESPECIALLY with Drumpf in charge now), the War on Terror isn't that divisive an issue, except on the Progressive Left. But the moment that Cheney's precious "secret WMD tunnels" in Iraq were exposed post-invasion to be nothing more than irrigation ditches for watering cattle both the Left AND the Center became fed up with "Bush's War". To the point where the further Left you go on the political spectrum the more you believe it was all "Blood for Oil".

Personally, whatever Bush may have told himself, I've believed for many years that it was all about Bush killing the man who tried to kill his daddy. The Bushes are like the Kennedy's when it comes to family loyalty. W knew that he wasn't going to be welcome in Kennebunkport until he could present Saddam's head to his mother on a family Christmas platter. People talk about how "sweet" Barbara Bush is. And she is. To those on her side. But if you're not, God help you.:mad:

EDIT: Oops. I already posted all this stuff back on page one.
 
With no 911 I don't see the Iraq War taking place during Bush's Presidency. There was just no consensus for it, even in OTL there were massive protests and public outcry, it would be even less likely with no terrorist attack to galvanize the population.

Instead, I imagine American politics would be much more focused on the ENRON scandal, social issues like stem cell research, and the US trade deficit with China.

Indeed, with no Iraq War I think China and Russia would be the focus of American foreign policy, relations could probably be much chillier, particularly after the 2001 spy plane incident with China and during the 2007 poisoning of Ukrainian candidate Yushchenko with Russia, or during the 2006 murder of dissident Litvinenko, poisoned with radioactive polonium in the UK.

The American reaction to these incidents would have been much tougher (in fact it was quite muted in OTL) and NATO would have been much more united since the Iraq War created major rifts in OTL.

I can imagine Russia being expelled from the G8 at some point during the 2000s and talk of a "Second Cold War" already taking shape by 2007.

Missile defense in Eastern Europe and the development of US bunker buster bombs would be at the forefront of foreign policy rather than a sideshow to the Iraq War. Nuclear bunker buster bomb development was sold to the public as something relating to the Iraq War but in fact they were a response to massive nuclear bunker building by the Russians in the 1990s. (Like the Yamantau Mountain and Kosvinsky Mountain facilities)

Politically, I can see Bush losing the 2004 elections to someone like Dick Gephardt or John Edwards, and McCain likely winning the Presidency in 2008.
 
Last edited:
With no 911 I don't see the Iraq War taking place during Bush's Presidency. There was just no consensus for it, even in OTL there were massive protests and public outcry, it would be even less likely with no terrorist attack to galvanize the population.

Politically, I can see Bush losing the 2004 elections to someone like Dick Gephardt or John Edwards, and McCain likely winning the Presidency in 2008.

IF W chooses to adopt the "mushroom clouds" strategy for presenting the case to the American People, he MIGHT get a razor thin Iraq War congressional approval, with some Democratic legislators going with him. I doubt however that ITTL Hillary votes for the motion, and that'll give enough cover for a lot of other Democrats to join with more progressive congress-critters. Just not enough to change the outcome

It's easy to forget the during the first six years of W's presidency (except in the brief period when Vermont Jim Jeffords' defection split the Senate) he basically ruled as a limited monarch. He and congressional republicans made a deal that as long as he didn't oppose/would not veto anything that came out of the Republican controlled congress they would rubber-stamp all of his decisions. It took things like SCOTUS appointee Harriet Myers to even get the GOP senators to say to W: "Now wait a minute, George...":rolleyes:

But for the most part, W did whatever he wanted while the Party of Fiscal Restraint" spent six years spending like drunken sailors.

29 Democratic senators voted for the Iraq War Resolution. W only needed 3 of them. Without 9/11, IMVHO he still gets that resolution. And at worst, perhaps he only gets half of those who voted with him OTL.

1) Hillary gets a lot of grief for voting for the Iraq War. People do not seem to want to take note of the fact that she was in office for less than two years and she was the Junior Senator of the State of New York. In terms of responsibility to her office and her constituents, she HAD to vote for a resolution that the majority of her caucus colleagues and her own senate leaders supported.

But in a world with no 9/11...
 
With no 911 I don't see the Iraq War taking place during Bush's Presidency. There was just no consensus for it, (1) even in OTL there were massive protests and public outcry, it would be even less likely with no terrorist attack to galvanize the population.

There was every galvanizing factor for Afghanistan, but Iraq?

Among Bush's people there were those telling Bush what he wanted to hear to protect their jobs, there were those telling him what he wanted to hear to get promotions, there were those telling him what he wanted to hear so that their friends could make billions in no-bid government contracts, and there were the Neo-Cons talking about "regime-change" and "establishing Jeffersonian Democracy" as if Saddam's Iraq was in WWII. Talk about fighting the last war! These idiots Rumsfeld and Cheney were fighting the last war before the last war BEFORE the last war! Its a wonder that Rumsfeld didn't start issuing the troops M-1 Garands and Sherman tanks!

Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear because in his mind Saddam Had. To. Go. My opinions on this are, I'll admit, very strong. A guy who never served, whose opponent (Gore) was ridiculed for not serving on the front lines in uniform, whose minions accused one of his opponents (McCain, 2000 GOP primary) of having a black bastard child (and cravenly refusing to even denounce the actions of said minions, much less apologize for their actions), challenge the right of a genuine war hero (Kerry, his 2004 opponent) for the right to wear the highest medals this nation had to give and he had earned...! Christ, in some ATL there's a Bill Clinton who pulled that with his 1996 GOP opponent Bob Dole, only to lose to him in a landslide.:mad:

Instead, I imagine American politics would be much more focused on the ENRON scandal, social issues like stem cell research, and the US trade deficit with China.

But, but...? Now that he's president, how can W ever go to his mother's Thanksgiving dinner unless he has Saddam's head on the turkey platter?:rolleyes:

Indeed, with no Iraq War I think China and Russia would be the focus of American foreign policy, relations could probably be much chillier, particularly after the 2001 spy plane incident with China and during the 2007 poisoning of Ukrainian candidate Yushchenko with Russia, or during the 2006 murder of dissident Litvinenko, poisoned with radioactive polonium in the UK.

This reminds me a lot about US foreign policy in the 1960s and 70s. EVERYTHING poisoned by what was happened or just HAD happened in Vietnam. No real Third World Policy, and only the ineptitude of Brezhnev and the needs of the PLA to concentrate on domestic affairs kept things from getting worse.

The American reaction to these incidents would have been much tougher (in fact it was quite muted in OTL) and NATO would have been much more united since the Iraq War created major rifts in OTL.

Agreed.

I can imagine Russia being expelled from the G8 at some point during the 2000s and talk of a "Second Cold War" already taking shape by 2007.

IDK. It depends a lot on just how desperate Putin is to start a Second Cold War. Considering events in the last 2 years, he REALLY wants that. As in, HE wants to fight the last war over again.:evilupset:

Missile defense in Eastern Europe and the development of US bunker buster bombs would be at the forefront of foreign policy rather than a sideshow to the Iraq War. Nuclear bunker buster bomb development was sold to the public as something relating to the Iraq War but in fact they were a response to massive nuclear bunker building by the Russians in the 1990s. (Like the Yamantau Mountain and Kosvinsky Mountain facilities)

What's their progress now?

Politically, I can see Bush losing the 2004 elections to someone like Dick Gephardt or John Edwards, and McCain likely winning the Presidency in 2008.

John Edwards was too self-destructive, and Dick Gephardt was guaranteed to cure insomnia.

If President John Kerry is the incumbent, John McCain isn't beating him. Not with Palin on the ticket.

OTOH, the Dems were little more interested in fixing the investment firms than the Repubs during the 2008 meltdown, so they could get just a very slightly less amount of the blame than Bush did.

OTOH again, you could expect Kerry to be a lot less asleep at the switch than W, even if the economy isn't his thing.

Of course, you could argue McCain may not get the 2008 GOP nomination. Or he may not choose Palin. Or he may, if it looks like he needs more help against an incumbent. Plus Kerry negates McCain's war hero status. A HUGE butterfly will be how the economic meltdown occurs. The later it is, the better chance Kerry has of holding on. If it happens six months earlier, McCain can start measuring the Oval Office for new drapes.:p
 
Seth MacFarlane demonstrates once again how poorly he understands the concept of alternate history
Brian stops 9/11, Bush doesn't get re-elected, recreates the Confederacy, and starts a nuclear war with the US
It's Family Guy. I doubt he made the episode as a serious take on what would happen rather than just a funny episode.
 
Top