Yea. Of course my main focus was towards 9/11/04 but I’m still curious about a potential 2/11/04, 6/11/04, or whatever. So if someone wants to talk about 9/11 happening earlier in the year feel free, but I am most curious about 9/11/04
It would all depend on a couple of things in 2000-2004. Bush would have to deal with the Enron Scandal defining his first year of office and his ties to that, which would damage his credibility a bit. His tax cuts just cause some problems to the economy and both are ties in to the various acts of corporate skullduggery going on.
Then we have the Amerithrax thing going on and with the two Democratic senators targeted, would raise some sympathy enough. Overall, things won’t be looking too good and would likely result in the Dems making gains over in 2002’s midterms, giving them slight majorities in the House and Senate.
Now, the question remains on Iraq. Bush lacks the political capital to make such a move without upsetting voters or providing fodder for the Democrats. He has no casus belli or the like to exploit like IOTL.
I suspect he wouldn’t do so because of it, but may still tighten security. By 2004, the focus on the economy and healthcare would lead to the Dems putting someone who could be focused on that (hence why I think Howard Dean could be nominated here) to try and beat Bush, who is looking to be a vulnerable and disappointing candidate.
Then comes 9/11 of 2004 and the shock of it happening. So between Sept 11 and Nov 2, the focus will be on 9/11, national security and if Bush or the Dem candidate could be viewed as capable of calming down the masses and convince them that they will solve the crisis.
On the one hand, a lot of people rally around the “Rallying the Flag” effect which may boost his ratings, but it could also damage them because of his pre-existing negative reputation and thus be viewed as the crown jewel of his reign of incompetence. Of course, his reaction also plays a part.
He would likely try and capitalize on this with an invasion of Afghanistan. By this point, it’s likely the Northern Alliance is reduced to nothing with the Taliban controlling the country near entirely. Pressured by the election, he’d be more assertive and more forceful in the invasion of Afghanistan for political clout and so on. This may be enough for him though it depends also on whether or not if there’s a chance for Bid Laden to escape during that time. If he does, we might see a backlash here. He would maintain a good chance of winning though everything fluctuating, it’s hard to pin down exactly.
Alternately, and perhaps more cynically, he tries to use this as an excuse to invade Iraq first to claim he was hiding there for political points and then when Saddam is overthrown, claim victory and ride the high to reelection and then say Osama escaped to Afghanistan and thus shift to there. This seems really unlikely as it’s incredibly shady and if found out, could lead to his impeachment and anyone else linked. On the other hand, shady behavior isn’t completely out of the question.
If Bush did do an Iraq War around the same time as OTL, it would be pretty unpopular, especially if it becomes harder to justify the why in getting Saddam and would tank him even lower. This would paint 9/11/2004 as a failure on his part, as if why focus on Iraq when the real target was in Afghanistan? I think it may be enough to backfire on him and the Dems win in 2004, though Bush may still invade Afghanistan, but it won’t be as effective unless he captured Bin Laden, which will likely fail unless he’s concerned enough to use numbers. Likely though, given the length of operations, may not be enough to save him completely and thus, he loses to the Dems, who have to finish what he started and inherited a mess.