On September 11, 2004? How big a landslide would Bush win? How would the people perceive George W. Bush if he had more years before the War on Terror?
What if 9/11 happened three years later?
- Thread starter Turquoise Blue
- Start date
Depends on what's he do between 01 and 04. Iraq might not be invaded, if Saddam plays his cards right.
He might not get a landslide at all. If he's been truly dreadful for three years and then 2800 Americans are killed on home soil on his watch, he might suffer a Carter-esque fate - the opposite of a 'rally around the flag' effect.
Bush's pre-9/11 do-nothingness/ineffectual nature has been exaggerated and will probably never be conclusively determined. But, for the sake of argument, if he had continued the cliché of being a golf-playing do-little, and then terrorists struck at the heart of America, I don't think he'd automatically get a wave of support.
Bush's pre-9/11 do-nothingness/ineffectual nature has been exaggerated and will probably never be conclusively determined. But, for the sake of argument, if he had continued the cliché of being a golf-playing do-little, and then terrorists struck at the heart of America, I don't think he'd automatically get a wave of support.
A better question might be what happens if 9/11 happens a year earlier. How does it impact a razor thin election where the sitting VP is already doing the best he can to separate him self from the sitting Pres and if I recall correctly Bush advocating moving away from a nation building foreign policy.
I've read a lot of things that suggest Bush was aiming on taking down Saddam Hussein from the beginning of his presidency. It would be interesting if 9/11 is perceived as being caused by the American invasion of Iraq, rather than Iraq being invaded in response to 9/11*.
*I know. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with each other. But the Bush administration was disingenuous at best and lied at worst on the connection between the two.
*I know. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with each other. But the Bush administration was disingenuous at best and lied at worst on the connection between the two.
There was a thread based on that, I wanted to see what would happen if it happened just before the election of 2004.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I imagine the conspiracy theorists would be even crazier if it happened in an election year.
Bush certainly didn't like Saddam and it was the official policy of the U.S. government signed by Clinton in 1998 for regime change against Iraq. But, short of Saddam succeeding in killing some of our pilots he was shooting at who were enforcing the no fly zone or Saddam deciding to launch some rockets at U.S. forces in Kuwait there was no political will in the U.S. for removing Saddam and Bush would not have done it.
In the months after 911 80% of the public supported using military force the remove Saddam. It didn't help matters that he celebrated the attack big time. If anything at least in terms of public opinion Bush waited too long after 911 and tried too hard to get the entire world on board something that was not going to happen, but something that Blair convinced him he could do.
By the time Bush did invade Iraq U.S. public support for doing so had dropped a fair bit from the 2001 high in the U.S. for doing so, Bush to convince the UN to join him had ended up inadvertently giving himself a major black mark that will long haunt him the false notion that Bush lied about WMDs (being wrong isn't the same thing as lying) and he let the Republican Guard and Zarqawi in 2002 plan for an insurgency which they very much did while our planning was half hazard of a post invasion Iraq and badly undermined by too many cooks in the kitchen fighting over Iraq policy.
Last edited:
He celebrated? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/22/iraq.afghanistan Saddam Hussein offers sympathy in email to US
I'm fairly sure that in the actual week of the attack, widespread street parties were held and condoned in Baghdad. A personal email 6 weeks later doesn't prove much.
Bush has trouble passing what little legislation he offers in his first term, but manages to squeeze through the Bush Tax Cuts and No Child Left Behind, but the tax cuts result in the surplus declining by the election, which becomes a pretty split issue. The economy isn't a big issue and there's no foreign policy issues initially, but Republicans use social issues and tax cuts to wedge in a very narrow lead.
It's hard to predict a different Democratic field since the OTL one was almost solely resting on foreign policy. I think Howard Dean was coming in either way, and Tom Daschle's a 50/50 chance. I think Wesley Clark's probably a 'no' and while we still see Joe Lieberman, it's a VERY different Lieberman than OTL, because he can run as a good social/domestic issues Democrat, not as a party hawk. John Kerry's a tough call for me, depends on if he think he can win. I don't think Al Gore enters because I don't think he seems as vindicated as OTL. If Paul Wellstone's alive he could be a maybe. We'll probably still see John Edwards. I think we see a lot more heavyweights. Maybe Joe Biden.
Lincoln Chaffee might run against him in the primaries as he considered OTL before Saddam was caught.
In any case, if it's in the middle of an election, right before the debates, I think it's a reverse effect. I think people question how the Bush team could let such a tragedy befall the American people in a time of crisis. The election isn't going to be put off, so the Democrats will pull out the national security card against him. If it doesn't work, then it backfires horrendously.
It's hard to predict a different Democratic field since the OTL one was almost solely resting on foreign policy. I think Howard Dean was coming in either way, and Tom Daschle's a 50/50 chance. I think Wesley Clark's probably a 'no' and while we still see Joe Lieberman, it's a VERY different Lieberman than OTL, because he can run as a good social/domestic issues Democrat, not as a party hawk. John Kerry's a tough call for me, depends on if he think he can win. I don't think Al Gore enters because I don't think he seems as vindicated as OTL. If Paul Wellstone's alive he could be a maybe. We'll probably still see John Edwards. I think we see a lot more heavyweights. Maybe Joe Biden.
Lincoln Chaffee might run against him in the primaries as he considered OTL before Saddam was caught.
In any case, if it's in the middle of an election, right before the debates, I think it's a reverse effect. I think people question how the Bush team could let such a tragedy befall the American people in a time of crisis. The election isn't going to be put off, so the Democrats will pull out the national security card against him. If it doesn't work, then it backfires horrendously.
But even Carter *at first* got a rally-'round-the-flag effect from the hostage crisis. "After the late November surge, Carter's ratings stayed high from December 1979 through February 1980, but by March 1980, he was back in the low 40% range." http://www.gallup.com/poll/151106/obama-november-approval-weak-historical-perspective.aspx
I'm pretty sure that directly coincided with the failure of Eagle Claw. If Bush screws up similarly then you'd probably have the same reaction but as long as he does something that looks halfway competent it shouldn't be hard for him to grab and keep the "rally round the flag" effect.
And let's not forget that nasty little man named Karl Rove who had the devil's own luck when it came to making lemonade out of horse piss.
He said America was "reaping the fruits of their crimes against humanity," but I can't recall or find reference to some kind of official 9/11 block party. You may be thinking of Palestine.
Eagle Claw was on April 24, 1980--a month after Carter's ratings started to fall again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
IF he manages to kill or capture OBL prior to the election, I could see a 1964-esque victory for Bush.
Though the conspiracy theorists would go ballistic.
Though the conspiracy theorists would go ballistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Islamic_world
The accuracy of the last part is a bit disputed.
redlightning
Banned
Bush would probably be a lame-duck incumbent, someone as lackluster as Gerald Ford was. Initially Americans would blame him for the attack by not doing anything about Osama Bin Laden who would no doubt be a thorn in his side during his presidency or much about Saddam Hussein. Afghanistan is still invaded, but the election probably puts a Democrat in the White House in 2004 because Bush is already tainted with weakness and incompetence. This would top it all off. There would be no time for an invasion of Iraq.
A lot depends on what happens before hand. Bush would likely have started sending more support to the Northern Alliance with the goal of effecting regime change in Afghanistan. Clandestine involvement in that part of the world might have forestalled a later 9/11 altogether. On the other hand there will be some people who will try to blame the attack on Bush Afghanistan policy.
I also think that in this scenario there is no invasion of Iraq but rather stepped up covert action to remove Saddam Hussein,
In any case, if a 9/11 2004 takes place, following the pattern of the OTL event, we have boots on the ground in Afghanistan by election day. The Democratic nominee has to go along and not seen as undermining the reaction to a terrorist outrage. Other wise he will lose by a greater margin than he would have otherwise to a newly popular war leader.
I also think that in this scenario there is no invasion of Iraq but rather stepped up covert action to remove Saddam Hussein,
In any case, if a 9/11 2004 takes place, following the pattern of the OTL event, we have boots on the ground in Afghanistan by election day. The Democratic nominee has to go along and not seen as undermining the reaction to a terrorist outrage. Other wise he will lose by a greater margin than he would have otherwise to a newly popular war leader.