Say the 9/11 attacks happened a year earlier, on September 11, 2000 instead of 2001. What is Clinton's response to such an event? With the 2000 presidential election less than 2 months away, could this event possibly have any effect on how the election turns out?
WI: The 9/11 Attacks Happened 1 Year Earlier?
- Thread starter SomeGuyOnline
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11
Simple, the attacks cause an immediate rally-around-the-flag attack for Bill Clinton leading to his VP Al Gore easily winning the presidential election in a landslide in November. Of course this would avert the invasion of Iraq and cause an earlier War on Terror during the final months of Clinton's presidency and the majority of Gore's.
If Clinton was so much more attentive to AQ then why did he turn down going after Osama Bin Laden when Sudan offered him up?
First of all the alternate 9/11 attacks are still called the 9/11 attacks even if they take place in 2000 because of the same date. Also McCain had already lost the Republican nomination to Dubya by September when the general election was already underway with the debates set for October.
If they did that it wouldn't weaken the rally around the flag effect, but it would lead to an anti-Republican backlash much bigger than the one surrounding Clinton's impeachment.
I can’t see a an anti Republican backlash. Why would that happen? Hell if George and the republicans are smart they could use the fact that Bill had the chance to get rid of osama against him and gore. I’m not sure if it would become public knowledge at that time but iirc it was whay 3?4? Times? That wouldn’t look good.
Last edited:
Politicizing a tragedy when most of the country is having a rally around the flag moment, after an impeachment that most of the country disapproved of? Yes, there would be a major anti-Republican backlash if they were to go down that road.
My apologies. I know what's written in the OP and tin, but went off-topic and began discussing if the 2000 Millennium Attack plots were actually carried out. I was trying to present other possibilities with convergent dates to the OP, but it's probably better to stick with what was asked.
Last edited:
From a completely neutral and unbiased position (I dislike both equally and having said that I admire Clintons oratory skills and strategic mindset and I admire Bush for his service flying what was a difficult aircraft), My position is that the response would not be different. Bill Clinton would carry out the same activities as Bush because the decisons on what to do are made by the same people and the options for response are limited and done the same way.
The real elephant in the room is the security for the election on November 4. I would expect National guard protecting voting booths and other security options. I still think dubya would be elected and the percentages would likely change very little. If on the other hand you had Kerry as an opponent then it would be different. America was at war the second 9/11 happened, during wartime a military combat veteran is going to be preferred over someone who served but did not fight.
The real elephant in the room is the security for the election on November 4. I would expect National guard protecting voting booths and other security options. I still think dubya would be elected and the percentages would likely change very little. If on the other hand you had Kerry as an opponent then it would be different. America was at war the second 9/11 happened, during wartime a military combat veteran is going to be preferred over someone who served but did not fight.
I thoroughly disagree with Clinton "carrying out the same activities as Bush". He (or Gore, if his successor) would not have invaded Iraq, which had little if anything to do with 9/11. Nor would Clinton and Gore have embraced kidnapping, torture and rape for information (which, it's worth pointing out, never led to any actual prevented attacks, and the false information received delayed Osama bin Laden's death by years).
According the the 9/11 commission report, Sudan never "offered him up". That was an unfounded rumor.
Bill Clinton is as I stated someone I have a fairly intense dislike of. I always state my biases in these knid of topics because it is relevant to my assesment. Bill Clinton is an excellent politician with the ability to make decisions then have a nice sleep that I would be unable to do so without numerous sleepless nights. This is not slandering him it is an assesment of his ability to do what he thinks is needed to carry out the requirements of his position. Anyone and I mean Anyone who becomes President of the United States needs to be able to do the same, the reason is simply the requirement of securing the country. He was more then capable of ordering military action.
Presidential War Powers and Bill Clinton's Battles | History News Network
historynewsnetwork.org
When Prime Minister John Howard in conjunction with President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair invaded Iraq I considered the refusal to get UN approval to be a mistake. I now consider those same actions to have been illegal. Moving into Afganistan was fully justified again that is my opinion. The problem in the case of a superpower trying to stop terrorism is that a hammer gets used on an eggshell and innocents get killed. Bill Clinton was capable of ordering actions that killed civilians and the people offering options have never changed.
Presidents do not control the actions of every single soldier, they get a series of options and choose the one that meets their preferences. So in the link above I consider the language and conclusions to be wrong but as a list of actions it is right. Replying to terrorist attacks is bloody hard because by nature they hide amongst the civilians and collateral damage is almost assured. The USA has spent billions developing less lethal options that began with concrete filled bombs to ensure only the target is killed to missiles with no warhead but great big blades instead. At the time Clinton was President I can be confident he would have ordered the troops into Afghanistan and bombed the crap out of Iraq if they sneezed. If he was presented with the evidence Bush showed the world he too would have attacked because the options he got given made it just about required.
If gore is elected in a lans
With gore winning in a landslide fox news do not ger the attention it got otl. Maybe it folds
Bush wins popular vote due to percieved weakness. Gore got as close as he did OTL with almost everything breaking in his favor but with an actual disaster on Clinton's watch to point to? Yeah, I suspect the querstion is how big of a PV margin does bush get.
Ironically, weaker socons in GOP coalition in 2022 given a bigger bush win in 2000. Why? More secure-feeling, less need to focus on turning out the base.
Ironically, weaker socons in GOP coalition in 2022 given a bigger bush win in 2000. Why? More secure-feeling, less need to focus on turning out the base.
Well, besides the rally-around-the-flag effect, I predict that political attacks would definitely screw up the GOP there though that wouldn't stop some folk. Question is if Bill would be able to capture Osama and so on. Would he handle things differently tha Bush would?
I predict that Clinton capturing Bin Laden would be a very good win and help push Gore over. This and no Iraq makes things interesting. Enron doesn't get swept under the rug and that wil have some pretty big consequences I suspect
I predict that Clinton capturing Bin Laden would be a very good win and help push Gore over. This and no Iraq makes things interesting. Enron doesn't get swept under the rug and that wil have some pretty big consequences I suspect
yeah but the moment when they attack Afghanistan Democrats poll numbers will shoot up and Gore wins in November.
Even in OTL, the 9/11 plot only barely fell under the radar of the FBI. Any change in timing or plans could have foiled it.
If it does happen a year earlier, Gore wins the election. After all, if he took Vermont, he wouldn't even need Florida. The biggest change, though, is that Gore would lack the incentive Bush had to attack Iraq.
If it does happen a year earlier, Gore wins the election. After all, if he took Vermont, he wouldn't even need Florida. The biggest change, though, is that Gore would lack the incentive Bush had to attack Iraq.