WI: Clinton Assassinated by Al-Queda

I've just seen a story that Al-Queda nearly managed to assassinate Bill Clinton in 1996 in the Philippines. What would they consequences have been if they succeeded?
 
Last edited:
Well, Vice President Gore would become the 43rd President, for one thing. The link isn't working, so I don't know what date that was in, but President Gore would probably take Clinton's place on the Democratic ticket for president. I can't really see any way Bob Dole can beat President Gore, so I'm assuming he wins re-election. President Gore would be eligible for re-election in 2000, and I can see him win re-election. Perhaps 9/11 is butterflied, but I don't really know. If not, the 2001 scenario in this timeline would basically be the same scenario as a Gore victorious in 2000 scenario, except Gore can't seek re-election in 2004. There, there's so many possibilities so it's impossible to say who would succeed President Al Gore.
 
This reminds me of an Onion article saying, "President Clinton Vaugley Dissapointed at Lack of Assassination Attempts"
 
Well, I've fixed the link in the OP - although it doesn't say in the article it would have been the last week in November.
 
Who would have served as Gore's VP? I presume he would've wanted to go after Osama in Afghanistan, could he have gotten Russian and/or Pakistani support?

So could Gore have run agian in 2000 since Clinton was the one elected in the 1996 election?

He could have run regardless, since he wouldn't have served enough of a term even if Clinton had been assassinated on the first day of the year.
 
Thinking about the Russian reaction, in late '96 Chubais was just about the most powerful man in the Russian government save for Yeltsin himself, and his relationship with Clinton had been reasonably good. There was also a ceasefire in Chechnya from that August, which might impact on their willingness to counternance US military action.

Pakistan hadn't recognized the Taliban government in 1996, and when the assassination would have occurred was in political turmoil, Bhutto had just beeen dismissed for corription and their was a caretaker government. They'd be unlikely to be able to do much to support the Taliban diplomatically, but their also very unlikely to be able to restrain the ISI.

On Afghanistan itself, in November 1996 the Taliban had only held Kabul since September, when the Northern Alliance was founded. The latter had had some success in October, and sufficiently rapid US intervention could see this continue rather than petering out.
 
They'd be unlikely to be able to do much to support the Taliban diplomatically, but their also very unlikely to be able to restrain the ISI.

I personally lean toward the Pakistani government being too unstable to afford allowing the Americans access of any kind. If the Russians are OK with it, and I think they're worried enough about the Taliban for that, then the US will intervene from Central Asia.

I wonder if ground forces will be used or if that element will be left entirely up to the Northern Alliance.
 
So could Gore have run agian in 2000 since Clinton was the one elected in the 1996 election?

Doesn't matter. The 22nd amendment allows a candidate two terms, as long as, if they ascend to the presidency, they serve less than two years of their predecessor's term. If gore ascends after the election, he can run in 2000 but not 2004 (would have, in effect, served Clinton's entire second term); if he ascends before the election (and takes Clinton's place on the ticket), he is eligible to run again in 2000, but not 2004 (has already been elected twice)*.



* to clarify: the situation would be similar to the carnahan election in 2000. the people are informed that a vote for Clinton/Gore is a vote for Gore/? (Kerrey, Wellstone, Wilder, idk). Then, when the electoral college meets, the voters pledged to clinton vote for gore for president. Ergo, even if his name wasn't on most ballots, gore is elected president twice.
 
Top