WI: Al Gore was president when 9/11 happened?

fred1451

Banned
Nothing so drastc as thr 'let it happen' conspiracy so much as Gore continuing Clinton's pursuit of bin Laden and better allocation of resources when warned an attack is planned. Different priorities result in the attack being thwarted. There was plenty of evidence out there, but it was NOT the priority under Bush that it was under Clinton.
You do know that the Sudan offered Clinton Bin Laden on a silver platter, gift wrapped and Clinton turned them down, right?
 
I've considered writing a story where Gore winds up invading Iraq under pressure from Lieberman, some of his cabinet and war hawks in Congress. It really creates tension in the party...

The pressure would come from all corners.

Al Gore savaged George H.W. Bush for his weakness on Saddam after major combat had ended and ignoring his ties to international terrorism in the 1992 campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
 
No way Gore invades Iraq. Yes, presidents have different incentives than private citizens, but those incentives almost all run towards caution, not military aggression. It's perfectly reasonable for me, a private citizen, to idly talk about how we should invade Country X (see various newspaper columnists, pundits, etc., since the dawn of media). It's much more serious for the commander-in-chief to do so, which is why they tend to be more cautious about such things. The "President Gore would be different from Citizen Gore" in this case has always been a ridiculous argument.

Nor would Lieberman make a difference in this respect; he's the VP, and Gore is not Bush when it comes to interest and ability in governing and foreign policy. The VP has only as much authority as the President gives him, and Gore (who chose Lieberman primarily for electoral reasons) is not going to give him authority over foreign policy. Nor is it clear that Lieberman would be making the same arguments as VP in a situation where a war with Iraq seems unlikely as he did as a Senator in a situation where war with Iraq was being heavily promoted. If war with Iraq is never on the table, he seems unlikely to be advocating for it.

A Democratic administration probably satisfies itself with a heavier military involvement in Afghanistan, including greater numbers of boots on the ground from the beginning. Not only is there no distraction with Iraq, but a different Secretary of Defense probably won't share Rumsfeld's "do more with less" vision of military doctrine, and will thus want to put more troops into securing the situation from the beginning.

An interesting question will be how the Republicans react. On the one hand, the rally-round-the-flag effect will still be strong. On the other hand, the Republicans would be quite justified in pointing out that the Democrats had been in power since 1992, and had failed to prevent the attacks, unlike OTL where Bush could plausibly claim not to be responsible after 9 months on the job. Would they support the administration, criticize its unpreparedness, or try to out-hawk it (probably not with calls for an Iraq War in particular, but with more calls for stricter security measures/"enhanced interrogations" and a more hawkish approach to the Middle East in general)?
 
How would the aftermath of 9/11 play out differently under a Gore administration assuming that Al Gore had won in Florida?

Most likely-Changes in minor details but generally a trudge down the same dreary path to national ruin for America. Probably more Repub resistance to the Patriot Act and a willingness to openly point out that the PA is just Clintion's banking know your customer legislation in a new dress- still passes with rock solid dem support. Less likely, but possible- RW talk radio gives a much more serious hearing to charges of black op government involvement. Were such charges to gain traction on the Right and in the Center by 2004 America might well be at a significant fork in its road with perhaps a President impeached in view.
 
There would easily be Congressional investigations, unlike OTL. Expect Republicans taking a key role.
Gore the private citizen may have opposed action against Iraq in 2003, but in 1998, Gore the VP backed action in Iraq.
 

jahenders

Banned
Oh, brother. You mean things that Clinton built like the WALL between the CIA and FBI?

More likely Gore continues Clinton tradition of randomly lobbing Tomahawks that hit nothing but empty camps, quite possibly doing that instead of invading AFG.

Follows up on what Clinton had built and continues to chase Bin Laden.
 

jahenders

Banned
I see NOTHING to suggest that a Democratic administration would put more boots on the ground in AFG. They likely wouldn't have gone into Iraq. However, I think they'd be at least as likely to try to minimize boots on the ground. In fact, some Dem regimes might try not to put ANY combat troops there -- just advisers, etc. History also suggest the possibility that a Dem regime might try to "quarterback" the war from the White House, limiting what our troops can do and when, and overall reducing the odds of any positive result in AFG.

A Democratic administration probably satisfies itself with a heavier military involvement in Afghanistan, including greater numbers of boots on the ground from the beginning. Not only is there no distraction with Iraq, but a different Secretary of Defense probably won't share Rumsfeld's "do more with less" vision of military doctrine, and will thus want to put more troops into securing the situation from the beginning.

An interesting question will be how the Republicans react. On the one hand, the rally-round-the-flag effect will still be strong. On the other hand, the Republicans would be quite justified in pointing out that the Democrats had been in power since 1992, and had failed to prevent the attacks, unlike OTL where Bush could plausibly claim not to be responsible after 9 months on the job. Would they support the administration, criticize its unpreparedness, or try to out-hawk it (probably not with calls for an Iraq War in particular, but with more calls for stricter security measures/"enhanced interrogations" and a more hawkish approach to the Middle East in general)?
 
Not necessarily false, but not necessarily true either. The big thing though is that at the time the US had nothing to hold him on which does make a difference.

That claim has been completely overblown. Bin Laden was not a major target for the US until our embassies were bombed in 1998, so, even though the offer was likely disingenuous, even if it was legit, it's not what it's been made out to be.

With that being said, I think it's more likely they foil 9/11 in a Gore admin but that doesn't make it probable that they would stop the plot. I only say this because the Clinton obsession with him in the late 1990s likely carries over to Gore, and the people Bush brought in were just not focused on Bin Laden, they didn't consider him to be all that much of a threat. Gore would probably have taken what Clinton told Bush about Bin Laden more seriously. This doesn't mean the Bush people were incompetent on this, they just had different priorities. It was just bad timing that an administration came in that was made up of people who didn't have much experience in dealing with non-state actors.

But no one can say either way if the attacks could have been stopped.
 
I've considered writing a story where Gore winds up invading Iraq under pressure from Lieberman, some of his cabinet and war hawks in Congress. It really creates tension in the party...

Because the vice-president is a famously powerful position with the ability to pressure the president.

I don't know why anyone thinks that anyone outside of the PNAC guys would want to invade Iraq over 9/11. There was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and the only reason anyone thought there was was because the people around Bush were deliberately pushing that media narrative. It was a bunch of old Republican foreign policy hands that were involved in the first Iraq War, and jumped at the excuse of 9/11 to finish Hussein off. Even though you get Democratic hawks that jump on any military intervention exercise, I can't see why Iraq would even be proposed as a target in this scenario. Without advisors left over from the first Gulf war, there's no more reason for them to be targeted than Iran or Syria.
 
Because the vice-president is a famously powerful position with the ability to pressure the president.

I don't know why anyone thinks that anyone outside of the PNAC guys would want to invade Iraq over 9/11. There was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and the only reason anyone thought there was was because the people around Bush were deliberately pushing that media narrative. It was a bunch of old Republican foreign policy hands that were involved in the first Iraq War, and jumped at the excuse of 9/11 to finish Hussein off. Even though you get Democratic hawks that jump on any military intervention exercise, I can't see why Iraq would even be proposed as a target in this scenario. Without advisors left over from the first Gulf war, there's no more reason for them to be targeted than Iran or Syria.

Richard Holbrooke (considered Gore's likely Secretary of State) and Leon Fuerth (his likely National Security Advisor) made some pretty hawkish statements about Saddam Hussein... https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=8743722&postcount=4

Consider Fuerth's statement in May 2002 (almost a year before the invasion): "Finally a word for Democrats. The moment of truth over Iraq – whether it comes sooner or later – requires broad-based support. For whatever reason, that kind of support was not available from the Democratic party (with some notable exceptions) when the United States was deliberating whether, and in what way, to deal with Saddam's occupation of Kuwait 12 years ago. Thus Democrats now need to be clear about three things: Saddam Hussein cannot coexist with the vital security interests of the United States; his departure cannot be brought about except under conditions of grave crisis; and that event and its accomplishment require true bipartisan leadership." https://books.google.com/books?id=PPF7_HuiMjsC&pg=PA102
 
An interesting question will be how the Republicans react. On the one hand, the rally-round-the-flag effect will still be strong. On the other hand, the Republicans would be quite justified in pointing out that the Democrats had been in power since 1992, and had failed to prevent the attacks, unlike OTL where Bush could plausibly claim not to be responsible after 9 months on the job. Would they support the administration, criticize its unpreparedness, or try to out-hawk it (probably not with calls for an Iraq War in particular, but with more calls for stricter security measures/"enhanced interrogations" and a more hawkish approach to the Middle East in general)?

Yes, Republicans would support the Administration and an invasion of Afghanistan to both the topple the Taliban and "destroy" Al Qaeda. A wrinkle is that they might want to put Gore on the spot and actually ask for formal declaration of war on Afghanistan and any non-state actors active in Afghanistan...something Gore would find hard to resist.

Yes, they would criticize the administration's unpreparedness and definitely out-hawk it (see the declaration of war above).

Yes, they might sound more hawkish regarding the Middle East in general than Gore, but the Gore Administration itself could use Lieberman to equal that.

No, Republicans might not call for more enhanced security measures than those likely to be proposed by Gore and, with Senator McCain around, they might actually come out against enhanced interrogations if the Gore administration CIA used them.

I don't see why (out of office) Republicans would necessarily be any more likely to aim next at Iraq.
 
Without Bush there is no No Child Left Behind Legislation and also no Common Core today. Social Security reform is made and is not headed towards bankruptcy.
 
Richard Holbrooke (considered Gore's likely Secretary of State) and Leon Fuerth (his likely National Security Advisor) made some pretty hawkish statements about Saddam Hussein... https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=8743722&postcount=4

Consider Fuerth's statement in May 2002 (almost a year before the invasion): "Finally a word for Democrats. The moment of truth over Iraq – whether it comes sooner or later – requires broad-based support. For whatever reason, that kind of support was not available from the Democratic party (with some notable exceptions) when the United States was deliberating whether, and in what way, to deal with Saddam's occupation of Kuwait 12 years ago. Thus Democrats now need to be clear about three things: Saddam Hussein cannot coexist with the vital security interests of the United States; his departure cannot be brought about except under conditions of grave crisis; and that event and its accomplishment require true bipartisan leadership." https://books.google.com/books?id=PPF7_HuiMjsC&pg=PA102

Yeah, I don't think there's any guarantees the US stays out of Iraq.

Rumsfeld and Bremer did *awful* jobs but if invasion and occupation happens I don't see how civil war in Iraq doesn't erupt, and this can badly fracture the party. Maybe Nader doesn't become a joke...
 
Top