WI: President and VP killed on 911

I wonder why everyone keeps calling Hastert a President when he would only be an Acting President (even if he keeps the office till 2004), according to the Presidential Succession Act.
The US hasn't worried about that detail since John Tyler. There is absolutely nothing distinguishing an acting President from a sitting President, and the same rules apply to each.

Afghanistan, for the first time in one hundred years, is fully controlled by a single force. I wouldn't say it's impossible for another country like Sudan or Libya to be invaded as well. The insurgency problem would likely be far less than OTL.

I seriously doubt nuclear weapons would be used, except possibly bunker bustgers. The military budget would be much higher, and US casualties would be far less than OTL (better armour on the HMMWVs, faster taking and holding, less insurgency [due to no Iraq, which set the standard]).

But the US would make it. We generally do.
 
Perhaps the reason the Presidential Succession Act uses the term "acting president" is that a tragedy that kills both president and vice president might also affect the house speaker, president pro-tem (senate) and members of the cabinet. It is possible the office would pass to a person who has no intent to keep the office for anything but the shortest time. Additionally, there might not be a chief justice readily available to formally swear the acting president in for some time.

Consider this twist: Suppose Bush, Cheney and Hastert are all killed in an attack and the presidency passes to 83 year-old Robert Byrd, next in line. As a democrat, he would name Al Gore as VP with the intent of resigning upon confirmation. Thus, President Gore might be faced with the task of addressing the Taliban.
 
Because Gerald Ford was considered a legitimate President, even under similar circumstances.

I would say that the circumstances are hardly similar; Ford was succeeding to office after a massive scandal and his first act in office was to pardon the former President, which hardly helped his popularity. Hastert would be taking over right after a major terrorist attack kills the President and VP, and would probably be largely accepted as a result of the surge in patriotic sentiment that would no doubt follow such an attack.

I would agree that Powell, as a highly respected moderate with impeccable military credentials, would be shoo-in for the VP slot if he wanted it, and under the circumstances he could probably be convinced to accept the Vice Presidency "for the good of the country."
 
Here is a question for the constitutional scholars:

Can Speaker Hastert (a Republican) and President Pro-Tem Byrd (a Democrat) jointly decline the presidency, passing the torch to the next person in line, Secretary of State Colin Powell?
 
Consider this twist: Suppose Bush, Cheney and Hastert are all killed in an attack and the presidency passes to 83 year-old Robert Byrd, next in line. As a democrat, he would name Al Gore as VP with the intent of resigning upon confirmation. Thus, President Gore might be faced with the task of addressing the Taliban.

Therefore provoking a storm of disgust and/or hatred from the American people for allowing terrorists to overturn the results of the last presidential election...highly unlikely, if you ask me. :rolleyes:
 
Look, this situation would be a national tragedy of the highest order. Bush & Cheney would be dead, but in all likelihood a large number of innocent people would have died as well--probably the first and second ladies, a large number of staffers at the white house, and probably at least one member of the cabinet.

In this kind of terrible incident, I think a nuclear response might be considered by more people than the dismissive voices on this thread. Ultimately, nuclear weapons will be left on the table--but not used. 9-11, even a worse attack where Flight 93 hit the White House with Cheney and Bush inside, or some other variation, would not justify a nuclear reprisial--at least not one immediately. And as calmer heads prevail, the nukes will remain on the table but off the battlefield.

One of the greatest tragedies of 9-11 is how coldly and divisively it was turned into a political advantage instead of a national tragedy. Politics as usual and the whole paradigm of "rule the largest peace" could have been ended right then and there. In this regard, Bush blundered away what could have been the best presidency since the second world war.

I'm lapsing into politics here, sorry. But the point is that President Hasert would understand that the United States would need to respond to the terrorists--but his handling would probably be more competent and with a recognition that he was the president of all Americans. The United States would accept NATO's help and invoke article 5, and NATO would work together to combat international terrorism. Russia, understanding that a great opportunity has come to smash Islamic Militants emerging in its own turf, would probably join in, possibly joining NATO outright as a result.

Bin Laden might still escape into Pakistan; but if nothing else the world will have worked together to respond to Fundamentalism instead of "rule by the largest piece"
 

burmafrd

Banned
Max, sadly you are wrong. Politics came back into it within weeks of 9/11. The current political climate is so poisoned that anyone who does not take politics into account is leading with their chin. Now a really imaginative and ambitious plan would have been nice- but who comes up with something like that within days? I really do not think much else would have been different then what happened, as long as who ever was president had any stones at all. We WERE going after the taliban who was shielding Ben Laden. Saddam WOULD have come into the equation sooner or later. Hopefully later, but he was going to be part of it. Just like NK and Iran.
 
Exactly. They didn't recount Florida because the state Supreme Court stopped it.
They recounted in Florida and Bush won. They recounted again( the hanging chad recount) and Bush won. They asked for a third recount and the Florida Sec. of State said no, the Florida Supreme Court over-ruled her,it then went to SCOTUS who said enough was enough that the original count and two recounts had all gone to Bush so Bush won in Florida. Later the New York Times did a third recount and found out that Bush won.
Bottom line Bush won the original count and three recounts one held by a Gore partisan Newspaper. Hate Bush all you want but Gore lost in 2000, he couldn't even win his home state something extremly rare in Presidential Elections.
 
Because Gerald Ford was considered a legitimate President, even under similar circumstances.
Ford was the Vice-President when he succeded Nixon. He had been House Minority Leader prior to being selected to replace Agnew. He was not Speaker at anytime as the Dems controled the House all thruogh the 60s and 70s.
 
It would be helpful to make friends with the moderates in the Moslem world that large numbers of Moslems wouldn't be so inclined to support the fundamentalists.
 
Top