WI: President Joe Lieberman?

What if Al Gore wins Florida and the presidency in 2000 but is killed on September 11, 2001 when U.A. Flight 93 crashes into the White House and Joe Lieberman becomes president? How would the course of history changed going forward?
 

jahenders

Banned
First, a President in the White House complex is not likely to be killed by a plane -- they'll get him to shelter if a plane heads that way ...

Aside from that, it could be a positive thing. Lieberman was pretty good at 'working across the aisle' and several years later endorsed McCain for President, then later became co-president of the NoLabels group working for non-partisan solutions. It would be great if he was really ahead of his time and appointed a Republican to be his VP -- perhaps, McCain, Bush, or Elizabeth Dole. Then he could work hard with reasonable forces in Congress to find real solutions to problems.
 
Expect a more fiscally responsible version of the Bush Presidency overall. Although with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (I think Lieberman is the one Democrat that would invade Iraq), he may push to abolish DADT, as even in 1993, to his credit, Lieberman supported gays serving in the military.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that at least initially President Lieberman will be surrounded by President Gore's foreign policy team.

While President Lieberman may be willing to challenge those figures-they will still have an influence over the policy options that were brought to his attention. With Gore a martyr I doubt Lieberman will mass fire everyone in favor of more hawkish or neoconservative individuals.

So the question is who would those figures have been-and what would there reaction to 9/11 have been? Who would have been Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State? Who would have been Gore's National Security adviser?

On Iraq I don't doubt that such an invasion could still occur but I have significant doubts that the progress towards the war would be identical to what occurred historically-for a few reasons.

The Bush administration foreign policy establishment placed a higher priority on Iraq than Gore's probably would have in their place. The Bush staff included many who believed in an exaggerated vision both of Iraq's role in international terrorism and the potential benefit of regime change. On the margins I think Gore would have held fewer meetings on Iraq than Bush did in 2001. After September 11th there would be few if any voices within the administration's staff insisting on Iraq's culpability-other than perhaps Lieberman himself. For the same reason I doubt anyone in the administration would have called for invading Iraq at the same time as or instead of Afghanistan. Even Lieberman would be more willing to accept the conclusions of the intelligence agencies at the time where culpability for 9/11 was concerned. There would probably be a lot of Clinton era holdovers here. What holdovers there were under Bush tended to be more skeptical about invading Iraq in the near term and more insistent on an Afghanistan and Bin Laden centered approach. As such that viewpoint would be dominant among the Gore staff that would surround Lieberman. As for the war in Afghanistan I think the war plan would be near identical to what occurred historically. After all the CIA director was a Clinton era holdover who would probably still have been reappointed by President Gore. Of course butterflies could alter significant aspects of the outcome. Bin Laden may not survive. The biggest difference is that Lieberman would not have shared the Bush administration's aversion to nation building and may expend more resources post-war. Such an expenditure could make a war with Iraq more difficult to prepare for. If the Lieberman administration is more focused on Afghanistan he probably doesn't consume General Frank's time with preparation for Iraq.

War takes time to prepare for and logistical resources. don't think Lieberman's attention would have turned towards Iraq until after the anthrax attacks. By 2002 his administration may have made a significant commitment to Afghanistan that would hinder such an operation, and there are less likely to be ongoing preparations for Iraq. Somehow, that alters the dynamic. Lieberman may use more limited rhetoric after 9/11 that would make selling such a war more difficult. In 2001 he may declare war against Bin Laden and the Taliban rather than "terror"

There would still be pressure for such a war internally and externally. Lieberman is as likely to react with the same level of panic to the anthrax attacks and will be every bit as convinced that Iraq has access to similar weapons and has an ill intent towards the U.S. But priorities matter in policy making and the timing and shape of the war may look different from what occurred under Bush for good or ill.

2004 might weird. Given their friendship McCain may not run-which would create a rare opening for Guliani. Without the blame for 2000 Nader might be a more prominent voice, perhaps even as the outlet for an antiwar movement angry with Lieberman if Iraq still happens in roughly the same period.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
I doubt McCain would accept. In TTL, McCain would probably being eying the Republican nomination for 2004.

I think he might if Lieberman casts it correctly -- tells him the role he envisions, tells why he needs McCain's help, says what he wants to accomplish.

And, though the alternate party VP thing doesn't happen IOTL, it certainly wouldn't preclude McCain from running. After serving a few years as VP under Lieberman, he could say, "I've been honored by the President's trust in me and I'm proud of what we've achieved together. He's a smart man, with many good ideas. However, his policies and cabinet still tend to run left of what's best for our nation and I feel we need to adjust our vector. Therefore, I declare my candidacy for President of the United States. I will continue to serve President Lieberman until his term is up, unless he feels the election makes that impossible. Further, I promise that, in my administration, I will give every consideration to good people from the Democratic Party, or others, for VP and my cabinet."

If he did that and they then kept the election civil while continuing to work together, that'd be an amazing example of bipartisanship and working together.

As far as Lieberman's cabinet, he wouldn't fire everyone, but he could make it clear that McCain is part of the team. Then, as some cabinet members eventually resign (or get fired), he could appoint more Republicans (or Libertarians) if he wished.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
There probably won't be much of a change in foreign policy, except perhaps more overt support for Israel (Bush actually wavered on that early in his Presidency, on issues like compelling Israel to end the siege of the Mukaata), perhaps even offering air support against Hezbollah in 2006.

Domestically, he won't sign the partial birth abortion ban, and the Supreme Court will tilt left. Medicare Part D might come about differently and be more expensive, leading to more support for the Democratic Party among seniors as time goes on (they voted for Gore in 2000 and went heavily for Bush in 2004).
 
Top