Bush Presidency without 9/11?

Let's say that somehow 9/11 is foiled or averted quietly, and September 11th, 2001 is just remembered as an ordinary day. What would the rest of George W's presidency have looked like without 9/11 and the War on Terror?
 
Enron is a BIG issue. G W Bush has it hung round his neck. He loses.

Query could a Democrat President do enough about the abuses to prevent the Financial crash 07-8
 
He wins reelection easily due to the booming economy. My guess is the business cycle hits and we get a "normal" recession in the late 00s, with the *great recession sometime in the mid 2010s given the instability built up.
 
The FBI and CIA evidently knew about the attacks to some extent but Justice Department Policies limited Sharing information. We can say in this timeline they did share information and the attempt was thwarted. The government would be aware of the threat still but without the attacks the "War on Terror" would not be that, more of a series of attacks and skirmishes over US Occupation. The downsides to this is Al Qaeda and most likely Osama Bin Laden would continue to exist as would Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There would be no US focus on Surveillance. The NSA attempt at Global surveillance would not exist and the government would no far less about you. George Bush's presidency would be uneventful. He wouldn't be remembered as incompetent, more harmless, though he would still horribly botch Hurricane Katrina, would he lose reelection? Probably not, we reelected him under worse conditions.

Though the "Fun" answer would be John Kerry winning in 2004 having two terms until 2012 when he loses to Mitt Romney(given the recent pattern of Republicans and Democrats swapping each time) and Romney would be President going into the 2016 election. 2020 would be the year we get Barrack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump running. My money would be on Barrack winning then.
 
The FBI and CIA evidently knew about the attacks to some extent but Justice Department Policies limited Sharing information. We can say in this timeline they did share information and the attempt was thwarted. The government would be aware of the threat still but without the attacks the "War on Terror" would not be that, more of a series of attacks and skirmishes over US Occupation. The downsides to this is Al Qaeda and most likely Osama Bin Laden would continue to exist as would Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There would be no US focus on Surveillance. The NSA attempt at Global surveillance would not exist and the government would no far less about you. George Bush's presidency would be uneventful. He wouldn't be remembered as incompetent, more harmless, though he would still horribly botch Hurricane Katrina, would he lose reelection? Probably not, we reelected him under worse conditions.

Though the "Fun" answer would be John Kerry winning in 2004 having two terms until 2012 when he loses to Mitt Romney(given the recent pattern of Republicans and Democrats swapping each time) and Romney would be President going into the 2016 election. 2020 would be the year we get Barrack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump running. My money would be on Barrack winning then.
He probably would be remembered for being a harmless goof for his Bush-isms. Dems gain a few seats in 2002 because of the midterm effect. He probably gets re-elected in 2004 in a rather uneventful election, with the Democratic nominee being either John Edward or maybe even Al Gore. Democrats make more gains in 2006 but not as dramatically as they did IOTL without the Iraq War to turnout liberals and anti-war voters. Without the Iraq vote Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Democratic Nomination and defeats John McCain. If the economy still collapses Democrats make major gains in 2008, but probably without a supermajority, so it's likely we don't see something akin to Obamacare. Hillary wins re-election over Romney, but by a smaller margin than Obama did. In 2016 Hillary's VP (let's say it's Evan Bayh) runs for the Presidency but after two decades of centrist Democrats a left-wing faction forms with Bernie Sanders as it's figurehead. Whether Trump runs or not is a mystery. His criticisms of Obama translate to Hillary, so he likely makes a run in 2016 or maybe even 2012. Right-wing hatred of Hillary has always been strong so she's likely to face a Tea Party movement in her first term, which allows Republicans to make huge gains in 2010.
 
Last edited:
He probably would be remembered for being a harmless goof for his Bush-isms. Dems gain a few seats in 2002 because of the midterm effect. He probably gets re-elected in 2004 in a rather uneventful election, with the Democratic nominee being either John Edward or maybe even Al Gore. Democrats make more gains in 2006 but not as dramatically as they did IOTL without the Iraq War to turnout liberals and anti-war voters. Without the Iraq vote Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Democratic Nomination and defeats John McCain. If the economy still collapses Democrats make major gains in 2008, but probably without a supermajority, so it's likely we don't see something akin to Obamacare. Hillary wins re-election over Romney, but by a smaller margin than Obama did. In 2016 Hillary's VP (let's say it's Evan Bayh) runs for the Presidency but after two decades of centrist Democrats a left-wing faction forms with Bernie Sanders as it's figurehead. Whether Trump runs or not is a mystery. His criticisms of Obama translate to Hillary, so he likely makes a run in 2016 or maybe even 2012. Right-wing hatred of Hillary has always been strong so she's likely to face a Tea Party movement in her first term, which allows Republicans to make huge gains in 2010.

The Recession and housing bubble would most likely still burst as those factors were largely unaffected by the War on terror and factors that causes them were in play possibly before then.
 
The Recession and housing bubble would most likely still burst as those factors were largely unaffected by the War on terror and factors that causes them were in play possibly before then.
If that's so then 2008 is still a banner Democrat year, and without the War in Iraq Hillary wins the nomination. For 2004, without the War in Iraq being the rallying point for Democrats to unite in opposition to it's likely that instead Bush V. Gore serves as this and Gore runs a second time in 2004, in a rematch of 2000. Without his high approvals from 9/11 Bush probably is relatively popular but not the most popular, and democrats may even view him as illegitimate. More of a climate warrior at this point he probably runs a little more left-wing, as well as to appeal to the Green crowd, but loses because the economy is good and Bush is mostly harmless.
 
Without 9/11 Bush is probably a slight favorite for reelection in 2004, as the early-2000s recession would have been milder without the shock to consumer confidence, and the 2007-2009 recession wouldn't be as bad without post-9/11 interest rate cuts and the commodity shocks from the Iraq War. Katrina probably still wouldn't go very well for Bush, and there would probably be enough of a hit to the economy later in his second term to throw the 2008 election to Hillary Clinton.
 
Just before 9/11 ,there were stories in the news of the Department of Defense mishandling large amount of money and some members of Congress were pushing for the DOD to do a full audit.
OTL everyone forgot or ignore that as we rushed to deal with 9/11.
With out 9/11, we might have seen that audit.
Who know what would have come to light regarding that missing money.
 
There would probably still be a war with Iraq at some point. It was something Bush was aiming to do and his administration is still full of Neocon ghouls looking for an excuse to start shit.
 
International jihadist groups were growing fast by that point with so many groups expanding from Monotheism and Jihad and al-Qaeda present in Afghanistan and Ansar al-Islam present in Northern Iraq. Stopping 911 won't stop international terrorism from becoming a growing issue until there is the political will to do something about it. You can't let terrorists have massive sprawling bases otherwise there will be a continued stream of global attacks until something gives. Terrorist groups are normally a police problem until they have large bases filled with thousands of members.

Firing cruise missiles alone at them as we did in the late 90s wasn't going to get it done.
 
Last edited:
The Economy, Enron getting more attention than OTL, and the Bush administration trying to push for a war in Iraq and failing at it (though you'd likely see a few airstrikes and an increase in sanctions), as well as the taint of Florida not going away like it did OTL throw the House to the Democrats in 2002 and the Democrats broaden their majority in the Senate as well. From there, Bush does one of two things. He either does what Bill Clinton did after 1994 and triangulates (it's not impossible given his record working with a Dem. legislature as Gov. of Texas) and rides some moderate legislative successes, a recovering economy, and possible Democratic overreach to a second term, or he doubles down ideologically, refuses to compromise with the Democratic Majorities, and loses in 2004.

After 2004 gets murky. I think if we don't have a war of sorts or some sort of international crisis between 2001 and 2005, the latter half of the 2000's is going to be just as bumpy internationally if not more so than it was in OTL. The economy and Housing market will still crash, but I don't think it'll be as bad and it might happen a few months to a year after it did OTL, making 2008 the economic poisoned chalice election.
 
Let's say that somehow 9/11 is foiled or averted quietly, and September 11th, 2001 is just remembered as an ordinary day. What would the rest of George W's presidency have looked like without 9/11 and the War on Terror?

Bush continues his focus on domestic issues for the rest of 2001. But as early as his first couple months in office he wanted to invade Iraq and take out Saddam. If 9/11 doesn't happen, Bush might still try to invade Iraq. If so, then I think the vote for Congressional authorization would've been closer with more Democrats opposing his decision. A major factor behind initial support for the war was the perception that Iraq had supported Al-Qaeda. which wasn't actually true.
 
Top