What If in 2008 George W. Bush had declared martial law becuase....

What should Bush have done?

  • Invaded Iraq in 2003 just like before without going to congress

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Waited until 2006 to invade Iraq without going to congress

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Used every plane he could to bomb there camp sites and not care what the Russians thought.

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • Invaded Pakitan to kill the leader of the Terrorist cell

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • Told the Russian's in 2006 to drop Iraq or we are going to war.

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Edited with A,B,C and so on to explain it better.

Changed events:

1) Iraq were to buy weapons from Russia in 2001 after the 2000 election in fear that the newly elected bush would come back to finish what he father started.

1A) To explain: This would be done though the KGB and with the idea they have been trying to work a deal for at lest a year.

1B) Putin changes his mind deciding he want's improve international trade and weapon sale's. He chooses to keep this private. But the CIA knows that he is doing it but not how or with solid proof.

1C) Submarines are used to ship bombs and small arms.

2) Russia then started helping the government of Iraq put down CIA backed rebels in 2002 due to the fact Iraq had looked to them for support and arms.

3) Bush fails to get congress to vote on a war against Iraq in spite of the claims of weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Logically none of the other nations that did agree to help invade choose to do so this year. Mostly because Iraq was clearly now aligned with Russia and they vetoed any UN embargo or peacekeeping effort that would impact Iraq.

3A) The UN no fly zone is lifted by the help of Russia and because of Russian intervention a limited number of the sanctions against Iraq are also lifted.

3B) Iraq publicly states they have disbanded there nuclear program, but only the Russian's were allowed in to investigate to confirm this statement.

3C) Israel claims they do have an active nuclear program. They later order a air strike but lose two planes to Iraqi anti-air craft SAM emplacement's provided by Russia. Iraq had baited them into sitting a false flag site and shammed them showing a video of them bombing a poor village.

3D) The Russian's now fly in supplies to Iraq after the UN no fly zone is lifted though they don't publicly talk about there arm deal with Iraq.

3E) The CIA Chooses to focus on Iran mainly because they have solid Intel they are close to a bomb and work with Israel to end it off the world stage.

3F) In spite of 9/11 as is in OTL no one buy's that it's Iraq's fault. People think Iraq is a personal issue for Bush instead of having anything to do with 9/11 or a threat of a WMD.

4) In November of 2006 A publicly noticed failed WMD test is done in Iraq. Iraq refuses to comment on this test or future plans only stating they will continue researching nuclear power.

4A) The CIA in the months following this test managed to infiltrate and disrupt the test. Bush was given the report and was told by his secretary of state to take this to the UN. Russia off the record told Bush that they didn't believe Iraq could ever build a WMD and that they didn't currently pose a threat.

4B) Most of the nations of the UN choose to embargo Iraq without passing a vote though the UN due to Russia wanting to trade with them.

4C) Russia sells Iraq two Foxtrot class submarine's.

4D) China agrees to import oil from Iraq.

5) In March of 2007 a Terrorist attack out at sea with a torpedo sinks a cruise ship and kills over 500. Bush blames Iraq for this attack but is unable to convince congress to go to war. A newly formed Terrorist origination operating out of bases built in rural Iraq with some camps in Iran claims they did it.

5A) In the few days leading to the attack Iraqi rebels had Captured Umm Qasr Port but were betrayed by 1/3 of there forces who were turned out to be Terrorist that shot them down by surprise once they had secured the port and the submarine docked there.

5B) The CIA had gained solid Intel over the previous two months that Saudi Arabia had funded the Terrorist cell that committed this attack. Bush after reading the report already made his mind up that the CIA must have made a mistake just like he felt all those people telling him about a hurricane in the golf that was going to hit new Orleans. The CIA then held a briefing with congress and they largely ignored the report. No one in the Public was informed of this finding by the CIA.

5C) The NSA Strongly felt the leader of the group was based out of Pakistan but Bush was too afraid to do more than contact there Government who denied any Terrorist in that cell were in there nation to there knowledge.

5D) Some internet Rumors were that this Terrorist cell had a camp in the mountains of India and Bribed the local Government to keep there mouths shut.

5E) The FBI managed to stop an attack in January of 2007 with a plot to derail a train with a team of trained Terrorist. All but two of those in the plot were taken alive. They gave false Intel that a 2nd team planned on attacking the Empire state building in May. But the FBI for a month believed that it could be true and heavily worked on verifying this given information.

6) In June of 2007 a 2nd Terrorist attack in Washington DC with 20 heavily armed combatants storms the Supreme court and kills every judge but one who manged to hide until the swat team arrived to then gun all the Terrorist down.

6A) The KGB in may of 2007 had told Russia there Intel of a plot to attack an unknown target in DC funded by a state actor. Putin told bush the little Intel that he knew. Bush took the case to the people and said we must declare war on Iraq now for being a breeding ground for Terrorist. The media slammed Bush calling him a warmonger printing excuses out of thin air. The approval rating polls dropped by more than %5 and his trust worthy ratings dropped as well.

6B) Congress called out Bush and said they wanted a copy of the KGB reports for the CIA to review. Russia refused to provide copy's of there Intel.

6C) After the attack in June Congress came around to the idea of cracking down on Iraq, but many worried about reelection next year if they were wrong about going to war with Iraq.

7) In July of 2007 Congress calls to openly support a rebel faction and gets many of the NATO nations to agree with officially support and supply the rebel faction in Iraq. Bush again calls for war but fails due to Russia stressing that Iraq is now under it's protection and that the Terrorist threat isn't there fault.

7A) Many in Congress did sit down and start the process to declare formal war against Iraq, but back tracked when Russia made a public statement claiming they fully back the government of Iraq.

7B) The CIA believes that the Terrorist cell is most likely to steal a nuclear bomb from Pakistan or India due to possible breaches in there military bases.

7C) The NSA has Intel that Iraq may have already built a 10 kiloton bomb, but the source is questionable.

7D) MI6 reports to the CIA that they found and stopped a cell who planned on using a RPG to blow up a plane.

8) Russia in the following day's responds by setting up a no fly zone over Iraq and carpet bombing the rebel forces.

8A) The US sends in a B2 stealth bomber at night by the order of Bush after reading the NSA report. The target was taken out and radar did not pick up the plane.

8B) Iraq speeds up it's production of the nuclear device at the alternative site underground.

9) In May of 2008 some Terrorist manages to Drive trucks though NYC and kill over 250 by running them over and shooting.

9A) A plot on the same day to fly a plane into fort Knox fails.

9B) A plot to bomb the UN building that same month fail's.

9C) Shortly after the now international Terrorist cell in Iraq claims right away they were behind it.

10) In June of 2008 Congress already under very intense pressure quickly passes a huge gun control bill that is signed into law by bush that only allows the sale of shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles after August 2008. Also forces all guns and who owns them to be logged in a government data base by November.

10A) The media had been heavily blasting gun's for over a year. They repeatedly lambasted the idea of people needing assault weapons for anything legal. They also said handguns compounded the issue and threw in all the normal shooting's and people who killed themselves with the acts of Terror to make there case.

10B) The polls showed %53 disproved of the 2nd amendment and over %80 disproved of guns classified as assault weapons.

11) On December 25th 2008 a Cargo ship enters Charleston SC and Terrorist from Iraq set off a fission bomb with a 40 kiloton yield. So Bush the following day Declares martial law and chooses to invade Iraq without legal approval from Congress while Russians are still conducting air strikes against rebel forces still fighting the Iraqi Government.

11A) On December 26th 2008 riots break out in SC as the power fails. Rumor's across the net spread that more attacks are coming. Some people momentarily think the third world war has started leading to massive amounts of theft and crime nation wide.

11B) A hacker going by the name Terror of the light backed by the Terrorist cell claims more is coming soon via a video uploaded to the internet.

Would Obama still be sworn into the office of the presidency on January 20th of 2009 after such an event? Could the Untied States avoid a war with Russia if this had happened? Would Bush let go of his power after he had declared martial law? Is there a way that things could stabilize after such a horrible attack has happened while the global financial system was failing?
 
Last edited:
Oh god bush has stared ww3, except He Doesn't because no one wants to be nuked so Russia would have to take this hit if it wanted to be a country. Bush would probably be impeached and Obama might or might not be president
 
Why does this forum hate President Bush so much?

I think his approval numbers should shed some light on that question. But I didn't write this because of my personal feeling's about bush. I guess since the Iraq war is a recent event with some distance behind it I thought it would be interesting to talk about it and what would have happened with the war on terror.
 

GarethC

Donor
Changed events:

1) Iraq were to buy weapons from Russia in 2001 after the 2000 election in fear that the newly elected bush would come back to finish what he father started.
Pretty sure that such sales were prohibited by UN sanctions, to which Russia was a party - UN SC resolutions 661 and 687. Why does Putin change his position here?

How does he deliver arms to Iraq? Shipping is inspected by the Multinational Interception Force (i.e. the US Navy, mostly) and Iran and Turkey are not going to allow arms shipments by land.

2) Russia then started helping the government of Iraq put down CIA backed rebels in 2002 due to the fact Iraq had looked to them for support and arms.
Okay, but bear in mind this is a job that will take years; also note that unlike Syria, there already exist no-fly zones over Iraq, which Putin would be unlikely to challenge, since, again, he was party to setting them up, which will severely restrict the ability of Russia to aid Iraq in the way it is currently aiding Assad in Syria. Additionally, the Russian military in 2001 is a lot less capable than now - both with improved equipment and systemic problems revealed while chastising Georgia in 2008.

3) Bush fails to get congress to vote on a war against Iraq in spite of the claims of weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Logically none of the other nations that did agree to help invade choose to do so this year. Mostly because Iraq was clearly now aligned with Russia and they vetoed any UN embargo or peacekeeping effort that would impact Iraq.
OTL, all claims of Iraqi WMD were without substance; if this is no different, then the major difference is in the UK, where Blair avoids the largest source of reputational damage in his period as PM.

4) In November of 2006 A publicly noticed failed WMD test is done in Iraq. Iraq refuses to comment on this test or future plans only stating they will continue researching nuclear power.
WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!! ALIEN SPACE BATS DETECTED!!!
The last time Iraq tried a nuclear weapons programme, it was bombed by the Israelis before they got the reactor running, let alone started making weapons-grade fissile material. The Iraqi military, intelligence, and scientific establishments were all heavily-penetrated by the US and Israel in 2001 - how has this programme got to the point of getting a device ready to test?

5) In March of 2007 a Terrorist attack out at sea with a torpedo sinks a cruise ship and kills over 500. Bush blames Iraq for this attack but is unable to convince congress to go to war. A newly formed Terrorist origination operating out of bases built in rural Iraq with some camps in Iran claims they did it.
Who are these men, these torpedo-armed ninja? And how do they get hold of naval weapons, and deploy them, without anybody hearing about it?

Bear in mind that Bush doesn't need a declaration of war to bomb the living spit out of a bunch of guys in tents in the Iraqi desert - the AUMF for 9/11 will cover naval Tomahawks, or rather cheaper B-2s with LGBs, or even cheaper Predators just fine.

6) In June of 2007 a 2nd Terrorist attack in Washington DC with 20 heavily armed combatants storms the Supreme court and kills every judge but one who manged to hide until the swat team arrived to then gun all the Terrorist down.
Look, I don't want to threadcrap, but the DHS isn't actually completely staffed with educationally-subnormal SS wannabes who live in their moms' basements when not inappropriately fondling air travellers. This is really the kind of thing that 9/11 made the US security establishment keep an eye out for, you know? How has this happened ITTL when it has not OTL, where the efforts of the FBI and the NSA and the CIA have been sufficient to identify and thwart attacks of rather smaller magnitude?

7) In July of 2007 Congress calls to openly support a rebel faction and gets many of the NATO nations to agree with officially support and supply the rebel faction in Iraq. Bush again calls for war but fails due to Russia stressing that Iraq is now under it's protection and that the Terrorist threat isn't there fault.
I would be very surprised if a majority of both Senators and Congressfolks didn't manage to connect the dots from "hit squad went after the Supremes" to "hit squad might come after me" and figure that the best way to win an election is to drape themselves with the bloody shirts of SCOTUS and go to war. Go directly to war, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

8) Russia in the following day's responds by setting up a no fly zone over Iraq and carpet bombing the rebel forces.
Nah. No-fly already exists but is US-enforced.

9) In May of 2008 some Terrorist manages to Drive trucks though NYC and kill over 250 by running them over and shooting.
Broadly speaking, lone-wolf whackos who suddenly flip without a history of terrorism can launch solo attacks. Groups get caught, because they communicate. The Nice attack was in the middle of a public festival - this is unlikely to be as successful an act of terror if it is a solo one.

10) In June of 2008 Congress already under very intense pressure quickly passes a huge gun control bill that is signed into law by bush that only allows the sale of shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles after August 2008. Also forces all guns and who owns them to be logged in a government data base by November.
If Congress is under popular pressure to do so, then it happens successfully, because in the end the reason the US has the gun laws it does is because a lot of US citizens want it to. If it were the case that public opinion shifted to mirror that of, say, the UK, then the 2nd would be repealed and the vast majority of firearms willingly surrendered by a compliant electorate who would happily abide by new gun-control laws.

If public opinion has not shifted on gun control, Congress would not pass such a law, as a) it will be struck down by SCOTUS at some point, which makes Congress look stupid and b) the Congressfolks who vote for this will be unemployed come November. Really. Congresspeople's day job is passing legislation; that's what pays their mortgage, provides their healthcare, and puts their kids in good private schools. Congresspersons are notably reluctant to adopt massively unpopular stances on controversial legislation that will allow a primary challenge from within their party - like gun control.

11) On December 25th 2008 a Cargo ship enters Charleston SC and Terrorist from Iraq set off a fission bomb with a 40 kiloton yield. So Bush the following day Declares martial law and chooses to invade Iraq without legal approval from Congress while Russians are still conducting air strikes against rebel forces still fighting the Iraqi Government.
Bear in mind that the things the President need legal approval from Congress for explicitly do not include striking back at people who have killed tens of thousands of Americans with a weapon of mass destruction.
Additionally, it would be highly surprising for Congress to do anything other than offer an augmented AUMF to go and deal with the source of this.
As for Russia, it has been the US' clear and unambiguous policy for decades to respond to a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons of its own. If Russia has allowed a terrorist group to flourish in Iraq which has carried this out, Putin will almost certainly correctly realise that his options are a) withdraw from Iraq completely because the Americanski are about to turn it into a puddle of molten radioactive glass or b) die as Russia is also turned into a puddle of radioactive molten glass as well. The fact that Russia may be able to launch a nuclear strike on the US as well does not create a third option.

Would Obama still be sworn into the office of the presidency on January 20th of 2009 after such an event?
Yes.

Could the Untied States avoid a war with Russia if this had happened?
Yes. The US has been the victim of an attack with a nuclear weapon. Russia can basically allow the US free reign to probe its security and military establishment to identify and punish (i.e. execute) everyone involved, or it can receive a counterforce nuclear attack which will, although not intended to destroy population centres, still kill millions outright and destroy the national infrastructure condemning tens of millions more to death through starvation, cold, and healthcare failings.
But it would be Russia's call.

And that's why we don't let our proxy terrorists get hold of nuclear weapons, kids.

Would Bush let go of his power after he had declared martial law?
Yes.

Is there a way that things could stabilize after such a horrible attack has happened while the global financial system was failing?
Yes.

While the result (assuming Putin surrenders) is still going to lead to a depression for the US and the rest of the world, there will be far less objection to state interventions to manage the humanitarian crisis on the eastern seaboard, and a wide acceptance among Americans that there is a need to spend money to fix the damage. Imagine Warren Buffet and Bill Gates each donating $100 million to the relief effort and challenging the rest of the Forbes 100 to do the same as a start.

As long as Russia doesn't argue with the US - but it's a bit like Serbia's position after Sarajevo in 1914. Argument with any US demand will lead to nuclear war.
 
Last edited:
5) In March of 2007 a Terrorist attack out at sea with a torpedo sinks a cruise ship and kills over 500. Bush blames Iraq for this attack but is unable to convince congress to go to war. A newly formed Terrorist origination operating out of bases built in rural Iraq with some camps in Iran claims they did it.

A torpedo? Err... with what? That'd be a surface ship or submarine and if it's based out of Iraq, that would likely mean somewhere in European waters. And as Iraq never had a submarine, that would have to be supplied by a country that possesses them. An obvious indicator that they are being supported by a state actor of some sort.

6) In June of 2007 a 2nd Terrorist attack in Washington DC with 20 heavily armed combatants storms the Supreme court and kills every judge but one who manged to hide until the swat team arrived to then gun all the Terrorist down.

The complete murder of the entire Supreme Court which, as you might imagine, means that it will be stacked with 8 Bush appointees. So... 40 years of a solid conservative court, roughly. If Congress approves them.

7) In July of 2007 Congress calls to openly support a rebel faction and gets many of the NATO nations to agree with officially support and supply the rebel faction in Iraq. Bush again calls for war but fails due to Russia stressing that Iraq is now under it's protection and that the Terrorist threat isn't there fault.

Of course Islamic Terrorists aren't Russia's fault; they're engaged in operations at this time in Chechnya to try and suppress their own Islamic Terrorists. Still, it's someone's fault and, again, Afghanistan is mostly contained at this point, and apparently all of the intelligence is pointing at Iraq. After all, if the target was more lightly defended (think Libya under Qaddafi or somewhere else), the US would probably have launched retaliatory strikes there.

The fact that no retaliatory strikes are taken towards any cell or state actor serves as further proff that the Intelligence Services believe or know that the actors are under the Russian Aegis.

10) In June of 2008 Congress already under very intense pressure quickly passes a huge gun control bill that is signed into law by bush that only allows the sale of shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles after August 2008. Also forces all guns and who owns them to be logged in a government data base by November.

If it's anything like the Nice attack, then the majority of the deaths were caused by the truck, not the firearms. And, if those are fully automatic firearms that are being used, than they are smuggled in from out of the country. Since the sale of fully automatic weapons was restricted, only 2 people have been killed with a legally owned automatic weapon, and one of those was by a police officer with a department weapon.

This ban that is enacted is beyond pointless; all of the weapons that would have been used in these terrorists act were already illegal. It does not address a single concern and would not have stopped the attack at all.

So, yes, Congress, rather than, say, approving a strike against the source of the terrorist attacks, they decide to bury their head in the sand and enact legislation that wouldn't have mattered if it was enacted before.

Consider how well the registration law is working in Connecticut: It's not; only a small minority have registered. No idea why Bush would have passed the law, again, considering he is opposed to it and would know that the law wouldn't have prevented them from purchasing the weapons in the country (especially as those weapons that would be used aren't for sale in this country, and those that are require so much documentation and clearances to get that there is minimal chance that they could fall into the wrong hands). Frankly, knowing Bush's stance, he'd rather citizens to be able to possess some sort of firepower to protect against the terrorists that continuously sneak across the border.

Oh, and remember that 8 Conservative supermajority that was just formed in the Supreme Court? Yeah, that's not going to let the bill fly. So... Nice job, Congress. Your reaction to another terrorist attack in New York City is to pass an ineffectual bill that won't ever be actually enforced. Talk about a Do-Nothing Congress.

11) On December 25th 2008 a Cargo ship enters Charleston SC and Terrorist from Iraq set off a fission bomb with a 40 kiloton yield. So Bush the following day Declares martial law and chooses to invade Iraq without legal approval from Congress while Russians are still conducting air strikes against rebel forces still fighting the Iraqi Government.

I'm pretty sure that the president can conduct 30 days of military operations without Congressional Approval. ...Which, after a nuclear detonation, would be pretty hard to deny (an escalating set of terrorist incidents where the seat of government is attacked, along with mass murder assaults committed in a number of cities and followed up by a nuclear detonation on American soil?) How does Congress not certify a declaration of war against the actor? Is Charleston simply not an important enough a city to be nuked? Does it need to be NYC again before they certify a declaration of war?

EDIT: The War Powers Act allows the President to act unilaterally for 60 days before a declaration of war or an authorization of military force is passed by Congress during the events of a national emergency due to an attack on the US. The President is completely within his rights to dedicate to military actions in the aftermath of such an attack. Also, as the Iraqi government is fighting rebels, that likely means Kurdish rebels; the US has been friendly with them for a long time.

My better question is, after all this time, why intelligence services haven't discovered who carried out the attacks? The torpedo attack is the obvious indicator, as that almost has to be a submarine in this day and age. Are they so incompetent that they don't discover anything from any of the attacks? The attackers all had a background, all had a footprint... And someone would at least claim the attacks as their own. The absence of a claim (or many different groups claiming) would be just as much of an indicator. If they were lone wolf attacks, that would have been discovered in the aftermath and televised, easily showing that the origin was elsewhere. But an infiltration of the Supreme Court and the assassination of its members, the weapons testing, the attacks far beyond the capabilities of an independent operator.

Again, there's no indicator in any of your events that this isn't due Iraq; there's no indicator that the intelligence services have located anything else, and Iraq had tested a nuclear weapon two years prior. Every mark is pointing at them. (Although, I wonder why the Israelis didn't destroy their program again.)

Without the events of the Iraq War, Bush's approval rating likely wouldn't slide as much, as the resources of the US military would be concentrated in Afghanistan and not stretched out. There wouldn't have been an unnecessary war, and while he may have still lost Congress in 2006, the loss still wouldn't be as bad. And, with continued terrorist attacks which the President seemingly can't act against due to Congressional stonewalling, the Republicans may gain seats back in 2008. I'd have to check and see the electoral map to see what Senate seats were up then...

Afghanistan may be concluded similarly to OTL, but Al Qaeda couldn't launch attacks on the US mainland after 9/11 OTL.

I'm not sure why martial law would even be declared. As devastating as this attack is... it's not a series of attacks and revolts across the entire country that have exceeded the scope of normal law and order to cope with. It's a single attack in one city that amounts to a terrible emergency, but a local one that can be contained.

Obviously, we have a disconnect here.

And... You're assuming that Obama would have won, when a major part of his campaign was ending the Iraq war and getting out of Iraq. After a series of major attacks on home soil, an inexperienced, first term Senator may not play as well; this is not a country that is tired of multiple wars overseas; this is a country that has been attacked repeatedly on its home soil by terrorists, who the president and his intelligence services (apparently) saying over and over are originating from a country and that Congress seems to drag its feet on and refuses to acknowledge or believe the president for whatever reason. I find it likely that a centrist military candidate, be it McCain or someone else, would probably have a much better chance of winning in this environment.

Even if he did win, I don't see how one stays out of war with Iraq after they have apparently been supporting terrorist attacks against targets in the US and abroad with support for a client, finishing up with detonating a WMD on US soil. If there was any indication that the terrorists had been supported by some other group, then the US intelligence would have at least communicated some report, as the objective would be to halt the assaults on US soil. And, considering that the submarine had to be supplied by a state actor, and the nuclear device as well, that really limits the actor that could do it. (I guess the detonation you mentioned means that they could have received assistance in creating the nuke). And, as the Norks just detonated their first bomb, Iran hasn't gone far enough, there's only real one hostile actor at the time who'd posses the ability.

So, what's to stop the US from invoking Article 5 of the NATO convention and then declaring war at this point? Russia would drop Iraq like a hot potato in either case; there's no need to support an actor who either: A, purposefully attacked the US or B, let the means for an attack on the US to fall in enemy hands. And, if Russia continues to defend Iraq, then that means Russia is directly complicit in an attack on the US homeland, which it wasn't brave enough to attempt back during Soviet Times when it was far stronger and not having trouble dealing with problems like Chechnya and Georgia.
 
The Democrats in the senate would filbuster anyone they didn't like.

I imagine that would result in Congress having even more pressure put on them. After all, the Supreme Court was just assassinated, Congress is stonewalling any attempts to combat the aggressors who launched an assault on the highest court in the land, and now is stonewalling any attempts to reform the Supreme Court.

So, yes, Democrats could filibuster, but there'd be 8 appointments that need to be filled, and the court does need to function. At best, Bush will offer some centrists that might go along as well, but there'd be a likely Conservative majority.
 

Hunter W.

Banned
Why does this forum hate President Bush so much?

Not only is he directly responsible for the social and economic breakdown in the Near-East but his idiocy was beyond unacceptable. Considering most people in my country think he was a fucking pillock.
 
Why does this forum hate President Bush so much?
We remember him.

If anything I read the OP as a pretty soft take on W, not a "we hate him!" thing at all--compared to OTL. It shows him tolerating being told "no" for the Iraq war he wanted so very badly, it also shows the ATL fantasy of him actually being correct about Iraq having "WMD" were that initialism is not really referring to a decayed stock of obsolete chemical weapons but rather to the nuclear weapons the OTL Bush administration implied they were seriously concerned Hussein would acquire. Yet this Bush who does not get his way before 2004 manages to get re-elected despite not being treated as God-Emperor...It shows a much more respectable figure doing a much more respectable job despite getting the sort of unrespect Democratic Presidents have come to expect from Republicans. It real shows him in a rather rosy light, and in addition to that shows his opposition as bullheaded and unreasonably blind to the realities around him.

It actually reads like a wish list every Bush apologist I ever argued with back in the day offered as speculative justifications of Bush's OTL high-handed actions...OMG the Iraqis are developing nukes! OMG they are going to give them to terrorists to nuke the USA with! It could be worse, but on the subject of Iraq it seems the author is projecting every implausible excuse the OTL administration pretended to believe in. And yet despite being objectively correct for once, Bush doesn't get his long-desired invasion of Iraq? When it was so easy for him to get OTL?

The OP does not make it clear whether or not the 9/11/01 attacks occurred in this ATL or not. If they did not, it might explain why Bush cannot get majority votes for the war, if the Democrats took solid control of the Senate and a majority in the House back in 2002, as they might have without the attacks, Patriot Act, and general "we must rally behind our Leader" rhetoric driven by fear. If the attacks happened as OTL it is entirely unclear why Congress, OTL controlled by Republicans until 2006, did not support the war. As for the Senate--as a Californian I wrote both my Senators in 2002 not to be taken in by any fabrications the Administration might make up to lure us into war. Both were Democrats that year, and one of them assured me in a reply she'd be vigilant. But Dianne Feinstein instead assured me that the Administration had presented very convincing evidence and our security would depend on following our leader...I'm quite sure Feinstein was not the only Democratic Senator fooled by Bush administration showmanship that year and so even if the Democrats had actually gained control of the Senate, that is no guarantee they would not support the war anyway.

So the "fact" in this ATL of Iraqi WMD with Russian support should tip the balance toward a war we were so ready for OTL despite the objective falsehood of that alarmist claim. So how come Bush doesn't get it? Then, having gambled his credibility in this way and then lost, how come he gets reelected, yet as late as 2007 a cruise ship sinking still does not get him the mandate he seeks?

On the whole it is a quite sad tear-jerker for poor old W, the wise man who apparently looked foolish and yet Presidential enough to re-elect to a gilded cage while an appallingly stupid Congress and Senate misrules, with the President helpless in some kind of box. It hardly reads like the work of a Bush-hater to me!

Given that this W is a very ATL sort of guy, not at all the FratBoyInChief who insisted on command OTL, I actually think yes, he is going to allow Barack Obama to assume office. No transition has occurred in a declared state of emergency before--but then again, the one that warranted it the most, the 1861 inauguration of Lincoln, the prior administration was collectively culpable of abetting the secession, so to them it was no emergency.

Then again since this TL makes so many many out there assumptions about what could happen, many of which can be critiqued for even being possible, and the set of them taken together seems pretty improbable, designed to create a perfect storm of US failure while a tragically correct President lies helpless in the tentacles of a stubbornly incorrect Congress and American people--people who despite their champion President having his hands tied reelect him anyway but then do nothing to give him the mandate to act--it may be that the ATL Obama is as much ATL as this tragic and pathetic Bush character. It may be that this Obama unlike the real person of OTL is every wicked thing the Tea Partiers and Trumpists have declared him to be--illicitly in office because of foreign birth, an agent of foreign and hostile powers determined to undermine and destroy the American way, etc etc etc.

If that is the case, and ATL W knows it to be, I suppose there is a real chance that rather than allow himself to be succeeded by a known traitor, he takes the reins of real power at the very last minute of his second elected term, and for the first time ever apparently in this ATL, stands up and asserts himself at last, out of sheer necessity of US survival.

Read all the stuff I've written as the work of someone who hates G W Bush and is willing to tell you why until your ears fall off. But I don't see how you read Retroactive Effect's OP as Bush-bashing. If anything the man is transformed like some kind of Star Trek Mirror'Verse alternate version, wise yet ineffective, and comes wrapped in a cotton candy made of his opponents as cartoon villains who are determined to wreck America, from without and from within.

It reads to me like a love letter to W.
 
We remember him.

If anything I read the OP as a pretty soft take on W, not a "we hate him!" thing at all--compared to OTL. It shows him tolerating being told "no" for the Iraq war he wanted so very badly, it also shows the ATL fantasy of him actually being correct about Iraq having "WMD" were that initialism is not really referring to a decayed stock of obsolete chemical weapons but rather to the nuclear weapons the OTL Bush administration implied they were seriously concerned Hussein would acquire. Yet this Bush who does not get his way before 2004 manages to get re-elected despite not being treated as God-Emperor...It shows a much more respectable figure doing a much more respectable job despite getting the sort of unrespect Democratic Presidents have come to expect from Republicans. It real shows him in a rather rosy light, and in addition to that shows his opposition as bullheaded and unreasonably blind to the realities around him.

It actually reads like a wish list every Bush apologist I ever argued with back in the day offered as speculative justifications of Bush's OTL high-handed actions...OMG the Iraqis are developing nukes! OMG they are going to give them to terrorists to nuke the USA with! It could be worse, but on the subject of Iraq it seems the author is projecting every implausible excuse the OTL administration pretended to believe in. And yet despite being objectively correct for once, Bush doesn't get his long-desired invasion of Iraq? When it was so easy for him to get OTL?

The OP does not make it clear whether or not the 9/11/01 attacks occurred in this ATL or not. If they did not, it might explain why Bush cannot get majority votes for the war, if the Democrats took solid control of the Senate and a majority in the House back in 2002, as they might have without the attacks, Patriot Act, and general "we must rally behind our Leader" rhetoric driven by fear. If the attacks happened as OTL it is entirely unclear why Congress, OTL controlled by Republicans until 2006, did not support the war. As for the Senate--as a Californian I wrote both my Senators in 2002 not to be taken in by any fabrications the Administration might make up to lure us into war. Both were Democrats that year, and one of them assured me in a reply she'd be vigilant. But Dianne Feinstein instead assured me that the Administration had presented very convincing evidence and our security would depend on following our leader...I'm quite sure Feinstein was not the only Democratic Senator fooled by Bush administration showmanship that year and so even if the Democrats had actually gained control of the Senate, that is no guarantee they would not support the war anyway.

So the "fact" in this ATL of Iraqi WMD with Russian support should tip the balance toward a war we were so ready for OTL despite the objective falsehood of that alarmist claim. So how come Bush doesn't get it? Then, having gambled his credibility in this way and then lost, how come he gets reelected, yet as late as 2007 a cruise ship sinking still does not get him the mandate he seeks?

On the whole it is a quite sad tear-jerker for poor old W, the wise man who apparently looked foolish and yet Presidential enough to re-elect to a gilded cage while an appallingly stupid Congress and Senate misrules, with the President helpless in some kind of box. It hardly reads like the work of a Bush-hater to me!

Given that this W is a very ATL sort of guy, not at all the FratBoyInChief who insisted on command OTL, I actually think yes, he is going to allow Barack Obama to assume office. No transition has occurred in a declared state of emergency before--but then again, the one that warranted it the most, the 1861 inauguration of Lincoln, the prior administration was collectively culpable of abetting the secession, so to them it was no emergency.

Then again since this TL makes so many many out there assumptions about what could happen, many of which can be critiqued for even being possible, and the set of them taken together seems pretty improbable, designed to create a perfect storm of US failure while a tragically correct President lies helpless in the tentacles of a stubbornly incorrect Congress and American people--people who despite their champion President having his hands tied reelect him anyway but then do nothing to give him the mandate to act--it may be that the ATL Obama is as much ATL as this tragic and pathetic Bush character. It may be that this Obama unlike the real person of OTL is every wicked thing the Tea Partiers and Trumpists have declared him to be--illicitly in office because of foreign birth, an agent of foreign and hostile powers determined to undermine and destroy the American way, etc etc etc.

If that is the case, and ATL W knows it to be, I suppose there is a real chance that rather than allow himself to be succeeded by a known traitor, he takes the reins of real power at the very last minute of his second elected term, and for the first time ever apparently in this ATL, stands up and asserts himself at last, out of sheer necessity of US survival.

Read all the stuff I've written as the work of someone who hates G W Bush and is willing to tell you why until your ears fall off. But I don't see how you read Retroactive Effect's OP as Bush-bashing. If anything the man is transformed like some kind of Star Trek Mirror'Verse alternate version, wise yet ineffective, and comes wrapped in a cotton candy made of his opponents as cartoon villains who are determined to wreck America, from without and from within.

It reads to me like a love letter to W.

I didn't intend to write a bush love letter, but I guess it is a rose colored ATL for him.

I just thought it was an interesting ATL idea as most people prefer him gone in the post I have read.

I have updated the post to add details and clear some things up. 9/11 still happens like in the OTL but no one connects it to needing a war with Iraq.
 
Top