wind down Iraq a lot quicker, and let whatever happens to the economy happen - if Bush is out of there in 2004, he will be remembered as an effective and thoughtful leader, not as the incompetent oaf he's been characterized as since then.
Basically an endless war. The US attacks Syria and Iran. They would keep going until they are worn out financially (war is a very expensive business) and/or they loose.
I don't think it'd change a goddamn thing. I'm a liberal and all, but I've felt a lot of the Bush hatred took root in such a way that changing any one thing he did wrong can't simply erase it.
Honestly, you want to redeem Bush in the eyes of (alternate) history, get him out of there before his second term starts. Take away Katrina, his many domestic policy failures, hell, wind down Iraq a lot quicker, and let whatever happens to the economy happen - if Bush is out of there in 2004, he will be remembered as an effective and thoughtful leader, not as the incompetent oaf he's been characterized as since then.
I'm not persuaded that Bush would have invaded Iraq if there was a genuine prospect that Iraq was in possession of significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons, or god forbid, even a crude working nuclear weapon. The basis for invading Iraq was that it was the low hanging fruit. Minimal risk, mucho (imagined) reward.
Saddam did have massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons during the first Gulf War. He didn't use them then on U.S. troops.
US troops weren't trying to overthrow him, it's far easier to use every weapon in your arsenal when you have nothing to lose.
I understand that. One of the beautiful things about this board is how reading Alt. History has helped me understand OTL better. At that point I was talking about his successor though - no doubt any Democrat elected in 2004 would get right out of there.We tried to draw down a number of times in Iraq under Bush contrary to popular belief. Each time other then 2008 the situation got far worse on the ground and al-Qaeda's power surged. Bush did finally notice the connection between troop levels to al-Qaeda's power and overall violence in Iraq was what McCain and some others told him it was and it was what led to Rumsfeld along with the generals who agreed with his light footprint strategy getting booted.
After Saddam was captured Rumsfeld and the military started to draw down and the situation exploded in the spring of 2004. They did the same two years later only for al-Qaeda to set of sectarian violence in Baghdad.
Was Schiavo really that political an issue? I heard a ton about it when it was happening, but I don't remember it much in a political context - just as a weird media frenzy event that made no fucking sense to me as someone who didn't even know what a 'persistent vegetative state' was yet.The OP said that pretty much everything in Iraq went perfect for Bush, WMD got found, and that there was a stable, functioning liberal democracy in Baghdad by the end of 2003.
I mean, Bush led a pretty fucking incompetent government no matter what, but what effects would Katrina, Plame, Schiavo, other domestic failures, Afghanistan, and the 2006 wave of scandals in Congress, have on him and his legacy without BUSH LIED THE TROOPS DIED and general Iraq-related negativeness overshadowing him and dogging him down?
Then the Iraqis...started taking over all of their civic responsibilities of a provisional government like directing traffic, volunteering in hospitals, forming groups to educate people about voting,
Was Schiavo really that political an issue? I heard a ton about it when it was happening, but I don't remember it much in a political context - just as a weird media frenzy event that made no fucking sense to me as someone who didn't even know what a 'persistent vegetative state' was yet.
Um, I'd say yes, actually, yes it would.
As long as there are wars in the Middle East, nothing changes as far as I see it. I don't think people were as angry as 'Bush lied' as 'Troops died', and as long as you have B, it'll lead to long-term issues. Bush still has two wars on his head, even if the second one was successful, the first is still going in OTL and no doubt would ITTL. I don't think it'll make a difference to liberals and indies where the troops are dying - as long as troops are dying, it'll piss people off.
Basically an endless war. The US attacks Syria and Iran. They would keep going until they are worn out financially (war is a very expensive business) and/or they loose.
I guess my memory's just poor of that event given my lack of interest in politics and historical subjects at that period. I remember the Schiavo issue very well in itself though.It shouldn't have been a political issue, and in the long term it wasn't really much of one. But it was an issue in 2005 when Bush and the Congress got involved, and I definitely remember a lot of people going "what in the fuck?" Might not have been obvious right after Bush's reelection, but it was still there. And weird media frenzies have this strange way of influencing public opinion on presidents and governments.
I slightly misread your question in the former of a 'Yes' or a 'No', probably because I got distracted halfway through typing. My bad on that one.Um, you'd say yes, actually, yes it would what?
Well, exactly. I think as long as the Afghanistan War drags on, the same principles that made Iraq unpopular will apply with most of the general public, even though the reasoning would be different.Well of course there will be people against the war. American anti-war sentiment is so obviously a way of our national livelihood it shouldn't even need to be reminded.
Of course, Clinton bombed Iraq (and ordered the inspectors out) in 1998, saying he was trying to destroy Iraq's WMD program. (Never mind that most targets were not affiliated with said program, and Hussein Kamil told the IAEA that IRaq's WMD programs were destroyed...)So keeping that in mind, for him to have real WMD assumes the complete collapse of the sanctions regime years before Bush was elected. Basically, that the regime never worked in the first place. In a scenario like that, it's more reasonable to say Clinton invades Iraq to distract the American public away from Monica.
I'm not persuaded that Bush would have invaded Iraq if there was a genuine prospect that Iraq was in possession of significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons, or god forbid, even a crude working nuclear weapon. The basis for invading Iraq was that it was the low hanging fruit. Minimal risk, mucho (imagined) reward.
Of course, Clinton bombed Iraq (and ordered the inspectors out) in 1998, saying he was trying to destroy Iraq's WMD program. (Never mind that most targets were not affiliated with said program, and Hussein Kamil told the IAEA that IRaq's WMD programs were destroyed...)
Lefties would still find something to gripe about.
The invasion was launched in Srping partly due to the presumption that the troops might have to fight in chemical gear at some point. The first time WMD's were used would come as something of a surprise however and even a nuclear weapon in the low kiloton range speaks for itself. Anthrax poisons an area for decades, An attack on a city such as London, with little to no warning and a lack of proper chemical gear would be a massacre on such a scale that Britain might come close to nuclear retaliation.
yes they would,until a lefty was in the WH.Remember,democrat wars good,republican wars bad