WI: Bin Laden Succeeds in '96 [The War on Terror Comes Early]

In November of 1996, some weeks after winning reelection, President Bill Clinton was in Manila attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation annual meeting and was proceeding to the conference itself. Apparently, he almost crossed a bridge where a bomb had been planted; Intelligence managed to put some fragmented code together and rerouted the motorcade away from the bridge about a minute or two before they were about to cross over it. Osama Bin Laden remained a relative nobody (to the typical American) for about another five years.

Let us say, however, the Intelligence Operatives are late in piecing together that information, or they don't receive it in time. The motorcade crosses the bridge, the bomb detonates, and President Clinton is among the casualties.

How does Al Gore and the nation respond to this incident? How does it effect subsequent history?​
 
In November of 1996, some weeks after winning reelection, President Bill Clinton was in Manila attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation annual meeting and was proceeding to the conference itself. Apparently, he almost crossed a bridge where a bomb had been planted; Intelligence managed to put some fragmented code together and rerouted the motorcade away from the bridge about a minute or two before they were about to cross over it. Osama Bin Laden remained a relative nobody (to the typical American) for about another five years.

Let us say, however, the Intelligence Operatives are late in piecing together that information, or they don't receive it in time. The motorcade crosses the bridge, the bomb detonates, and President Clinton is among the casualties.

How does Al Gore and the nation respond to this incident? How does it effect subsequent history?

Let's see. An earlier war in Afghanistan would have redirected the US and NATO military from Bosnia, or in this case, the US and its Asia-Pacific allies going to Afghanistan. Of course, this would mean that the Philippines is the first nation to suffer from Al-Qaeda's terrorist attack instead of the US.
 
Let's see. An earlier war in Afghanistan would have redirected the US and NATO military from Bosnia, or in this case, the US and its Asia-Pacific allies going to Afghanistan. Of course, this would mean that the Philippines is the first nation to suffer from Al-Qaeda's terrorist attack instead of the US.


Not that the Philippines can do much about it anyway :rolleyes:

Just remember how well they can handle their own internal terrorist problems, now just imagine how on earth can they manage a much larger, better trained and more well funded terrorist organization :eek:

How does clinton react to wars? We all know how bush treats wars ;)
 
Not that the Philippines can do much about it anyway :rolleyes:

Just remember how well they can handle their own internal terrorist problems, now just imagine how on earth can they manage a much larger, better trained and more well funded terrorist organization :eek:

How does clinton react to wars? We all know how bush treats wars ;)

Philippines would have collapsed in the face of both Al-Qaeda and their own separatist MILF faction. Worst case scenario, the Philippines would literally be the Bosnia-Hercegovina of the Pacific.:rolleyes:
 
Gore sends troops into Sudan, where Bin Laden was, plus Philippines. Taliban are likely still running Afghanistan. Republicans may go easier on Gore than Clinton, but Republican gains will hold more in 1998.
 
Who does Gore pick for vice president?

Either:

A- He quickly, in consultation w/the DNC makes a selection (Gephardt?) and then the DNC requests that all Clinton-Gore electors vote for Gore-Gephardt.

B- He and the DNC request that (in honor and memory of the martyred president) all Clinton-Gore electors vote for Clinton-Gore. In this scenario, a dead man is elected POTUS, and on 1-20-97 Al Gore is sworn in as VPOTUS and then immediatly after that as POTUS. Then, several days later, he names a new VP.
 
I would assume she probably had already decided not to return to Arkansas. I think she runs in New York. Chuck Schumer could then run in 2000.
 
I think that Al Gore wins in 2000. The economy was good and there was no scandal. I think a Democrat wins in 2004 but loses after the economy collapses in 2008.
 
Hilary would assume, I think correctly, that she would not be elected in a conservative state like Arkansas. As for the Democrat nominee for president in 2004, the economy is good. If 9/11 still happens then Gore's successor can cash in on the president's popularity as the leader of the war on terror. Gore would be more popular than Bush was OTL because there would have been no war in Iraq.
 
Top