WI: The Bush administration, without Terrorism

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to plausibly prevent the financial crisis by 2000, no matter who is elected. If the financial crisis waits until after 2008 ITTL (not an unlikely scenario, imo), we could even see a non-Cheney Republican succeed Bush.

It'll be like OTL, an open election. Cheney wouldn't be able to go for it, not with his health issues. So no incumbents. And the election will be fought either on the economy or on US internal issues. It could go either way. And whoever wins has been handed a poisoned chalice.
 
Without having his approval ratings jack up to 90%, he's basically where he is approval-wise in 2005. Given that he'll still try to invade Iraq, I can see him going down in flames similar to his Poppy.
 
am I the only one to remember that the economy was tanking in 2001? 9/11 did not cause the tank. It made it worse, but it didn't cause it. As bad as W was, he did inherited a dying economy. Clinton got lucky with the upswing. W got unlucky with the downswing.
 
I think Bush would have been a successful domestic policy president who would maintain strong ties with America's allies and harsh rhetoric with it's enemies without overstepping those boundaries as easily as we'd imagine. I imagine he'd focus on the many issues he tried and failed to pass OTL during his second term after he'd exhausted his political capital on foreign policy, like immigration and social security, in addition to more education reforms and tax cuts. He would definitely be nowhere near the 'mess' he was seen as at the end of his second term OTL. Of course, it also depends how the financial crisis plays out exactly.

The 2004 Election is anyone's guess, because with different issues, we might not even see the same roster of Dem candidates - and therefore a very different election.
 
I think many posters who treat George W. Bush as a moron, etc, are believing in a strawman invented by his political adversaries as a political tactic.

How many get degrees from Yale and Harvard Business School? His grades were "C", but notice how the incumbent's grades are sealed. Also, consider that he flew he F-102 Delta Dart, considerably before computerized controls. He may have had a problem with the bottle, but he licked that. Bush wasn't stupid and he wasn't incompetent.

The status quo in Iraq was not tenable over the long haul. At some point sanctions would have dissolved. The Oil for Food Program demonstrated just how corrupt the UN and members, to include France and Russia had been all along. Given all of that, what happens with a Saddam out of the box?

Remember, lack of action is an action.
 
am I the only one to remember that the economy was tanking in 2001? 9/11 did not cause the tank. It made it worse, but it didn't cause it. As bad as W was, he did inherited a dying economy. Clinton got lucky with the upswing. W got unlucky with the downswing.


Actually, I believe 9/11 DID cause the "tank". But the tax cuts made it a short one.
 
I think many posters who treat George W. Bush as a moron, etc, are believing in a strawman invented by his political adversaries as a political tactic.

I think Bush fostered the idea of himself as a moron on purpose so he could appear as an underdog fighting against the establishment. I think it actually helped him somewhat during the 2004 election.
 
Actually, I believe 9/11 DID cause the "tank". But the tax cuts made it a short one.

The economy was shedding jobs in the 6 months prior to 9/11, but the attack caused the monthly job losses to spike during the September-December period. There were no consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth, and the quarter just before the attack saw a growth of about 2.7%, then it shrank during the quarter of the attack by -1.1%.

So no 9/11 means the economy should keep growing, the job losses would have been smaller, and the recovery begin sooner. It would have been seen as a very mild recession.
 
However, to whisk away 9/11, you have to have a Clinton who has a clue about terrorism.

Clinton did have a clue about terrorism, actually. He was repeatedly attacked by the Republicans for being obsessed with Bin Laden, but that's understandable, as Bin Laden was responsible for a string of bombings throughout the 1990s. Clinton saw the bombing of the USS Cole as sufficient Casus Belli for war, again not surprising as Bin Laden attacked and heavily damaged an American warship. The only reason why he didn't pursue the issue was because he couldn't get the basing rights for an invasion of Afghanistan and he was explicitly told by the Joint Chiefs that running the war directly from the United States would been a logistical nightmare, so he was forced to let the matter drop, but he's always said that if he could have invaded Afghanistan, he would have.
 
Last edited:
Clinton saw the bombing of the USS Cole as sufficient Casus Belli for war, again not surprising as Bin Laden attacked and heavily damaged an American warship. The only reason why he didn't pursue the issue was because he couldn't get the basing rights for an invasion of Afghanistan and he was explicitly told by the Joint Chiefs that running the war directly from the United States would been a logistical nightmare, so he was forced to let the matter drop, but he's always said that if he could have invaded Afghanistan, he would have.[/QUOTE]

That would have been interesting. Since the bombing happened on October 12, Could he have started the invasion before election day? If so, I think there would have been a rally round the flag effect that would have helped Gore.
 
What if George Bush had been elected in 2000, but the attacks on the World Trade Center had not occurred, nor another major terrorist attack, and the War on Terror that dominated the millenium had never occurred?

I would say we see a President George W. Bush who tries to focus on education and the economy, doesn't start the war in Iraq, and actually manages to win a reasonable reelection, only to have his legacy skewed by the nationwide economic collapse and his lackluster handling of the resulting crisis. In the end look to see him remembered as a decent but not especially stunning President who trundled along and did the best he could to handle issues of the previous Administration as well as his own, and who did a reasonably decent job most of the time.

Also, look to see a decent Democratic candidate win in 2012.
 
Clinton did have a clue about terrorism, actually. He was repeatedly attacked by the Republicans for being obsessed with Bin Laden, but that's understandable, as Bin Laden was responsible for a string of bombings throughout the 1990s. Clinton saw the bombing of the USS Cole as sufficient Casus Belli for war, again not surprising as Bin Laden attacked and heavily damaged an American warship. The only reason why he didn't pursue the issue was because he couldn't get the basing rights for an invasion of Afghanistan and he was explicitly told by the Joint Chiefs that running the war directly from the United States would been a logistical nightmare, so he was forced to let the matter drop, but he's always said that if he could have invaded Afghanistan, he would have.

This is grounds for it's own TL or at least a WI thread.
 
The economy was shedding jobs in the 6 months prior to 9/11, but the attack caused the monthly job losses to spike during the September-December period. There were no consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth, and the quarter just before the attack saw a growth of about 2.7%, then it shrank during the quarter of the attack by -1.1%.

So no 9/11 means the economy should keep growing, the job losses would have been smaller, and the recovery begin sooner. It would have been seen as a very mild recession.

Yes. What was going on in 2000/2001, prior to 9/11, was the aftereffects of the tech bubble popping. Remember that? After what we've gone through the last few years, it may seem like small potatoes by comparison, but I remember just what an uproar it was causing at the time. The economy would very likely have righted itself by 2002, though, absent the shock of 9/11, as you pointed out.

I wonder if Enron's collapse in late 2001, and the revelations that thereafter came out about gross corporate mismanagement and malfeasance, would have been as big a thing TTL, considering Bush's personal connections to Kenneth Lay. Maybe bigger? I think the impact of the whole Enron mess was somewhat diluted by the echo effects of 9/11, including the initial military operations in Afghanistan, but without that, maybe a sharper focus on the issue of corporations running amok?
 
I would say we see a President George W. Bush who tries to focus on education and the economy, doesn't start the war in Iraq, and actually manages to win a reasonable reelection, only to have his legacy skewed by the nationwide economic collapse and his lackluster handling of the resulting crisis. In the end look to see him remembered as a decent but not especially stunning President who trundled along and did the best he could to handle issues of the previous Administration as well as his own, and who did a reasonably decent job most of the time.

Also, look to see a decent Democratic candidate win in 2012.

Agreed except that, as several others have pointed out, the crash may very well have been pushed back into the 2009-2011 timeframe without the deformation caused by the huge amounts of money pumped into the Iraq War. In which event, it would be Bush's successor left holding the bag in the view of the general public rather than Bush himself, though pundits would certainly point up the role played by the policies of the previous Administration; but then again, when did the man or woman in the street ever pay that much attention to op-ed writers? :p
 
If you want to do it, go ahead and do it....

I want to see that too. Among other things to consider; will bin Laden, assuming he's not killed or captured in the initial American onslaught, be able to retain enough command and control over al Qaeda, including the hijackers - who had begun to infiltrate the U.S. in early 2000, though they weren't all in place until the spring of 2001 - to be able to carry out retaliatory operations against the U.S., including 9/11 or at least a smaller 9/11-style attack?
 
I want to see that too. Among other things to consider; will bin Laden, assuming he's not killed or captured in the initial American onslaught, be able to retain enough command and control over al Qaeda, including the hijackers - who had begun to infiltrate the U.S. in early 2000, though they weren't all in place until the spring of 2001 - to be able to carry out retaliatory operations against the U.S., including 9/11 or at least a smaller 9/11-style attack?

Yeah, that's a good question. It shouldn't be that hard for them to plan a retaliatory strike inside the United States, since nobody knows that they are there, but the problem is that once they carry it out, their cover is blown and the Americans will come down on them with full force. So the question they would have to answer is do they put 9/11 or its equivalent on hold to hit targets of opportunity or do they continue to stay under the radar knowing that they are about pull off something that will be very spectacular and very messy. Either way, any opposition to Clinton/Gore going after Bin Laden will evaporate, as it did in OTL.
 
Agreed except that, as several others have pointed out, the crash may very well have been pushed back into the 2009-2011 timeframe...

In that case we could end up with a President Bush whose Administration had no major scandals or issues, and whose legacy is moderate-to-good in most people's eyes. Meanwhile his successor, probably a Democrat because he hadn't built up enough political capital for a Republican to ride his coattails, gets left holding the bag for the economic crisis.

I would also be interested in reading a TL about President Clinton going into Afghanistan.
 
Top