WI: Bin Laden killed at Tora Bara

Assuming you mean in 2001.

Public support for the Wars in Afghanistan wanes earlier than OTL, given America has already achieved 'revenge' and public perception is al-Qaeda is weakened significantly without it's leader (true or untrue) It becomes loss plausible to achieve approval for war in Iraq, and either the issue dies in Congress, it's voted against, or we go anyway somehow. The eventual 2004 Election ITTL becomes much more balanced between domestic and foreign policy, but likely contains similar Democratic candidates. Bush is much more vulnerable and possibly is challenged for the nomination.
 
^Rather ironic that killing Bin Laden early hurts, rather than helps Bushes re-election chances. I'd imagine he'd be dead in the water come '04 if he still pushed for the Iraq war, though Kerry or whoever else clinches the Democratic nomination thanks to butterflies will likely also be a one term President given the coming financial collapse.
 
^Rather ironic that killing Bin Laden early hurts, rather than helps Bushes re-election chances. I'd imagine he'd be dead in the water come '04 if he still pushed for the Iraq war, though Kerry or whoever else clinches the Democratic nomination thanks to butterflies will likely also be a one term President given the coming financial collapse.

It's very ironic - especially coming from me, who doesn't prescribe to even the vaguest conspiracy theories on the matter :p

I think if the economy is paid more attention in 2004, then the financial collapse is... perceived differently when it hits, to speak carefully. I'm not saying it would be avoided, but it might not be viewed so severely. It would probably depend how the new President performs on other matters. If he's otherwise popular, he might not be blamed so easily. I think Bush was dragged down as much by Iraq and the War on Terror as the economy in the end. People were more concerned about the latter, but they held more anger towards the former.
 
Top