How much blame would Al Gore get for 9/11?

[LivingSteam]

One of the biggest questions regarding a hypothetical Al Gore Presidency is 9/11. And the nature of his response to the attack. President George W. Bush received a major surge in his approval ratings, breaking into the high 80's and lower 90's. That he had only become President in January shielded him and his administration from any criticism that they could have done more to prevent the 9/11 Attacks.

A President Gore would not have that luxury. Being the Vice President under Bill Clinton for eight years. Opponents on the right could also cite the accusations of Clinton being a draft dodger. And Gore's Vietnam service record. Some people have gone as far to state that Gore would face charges of "Dereliction of Duty." Even Articles of Impeachment.

So how much blame would a President Gore receive for 9/11 or an equivalent attack made by Al Qaeda against the United States? Could a successful killing of Bin Laden blunt the criticism of his administration?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Current politics clouds people judgement.

Although Clinton era Republicans could bad, they are nothing compared to the behavior of Obama and Trump era Republicans.

I think the entirety of the Republicans in the Senate would come out in support of Gore (with legitimate questions still being raised with a professional investigation as to how this was allowed to happen).

Things would be different in the House though. It'd be a lot more unprofessional, and assholes like Gingrich would get the spotlight but I don't think most GOP house reps would be that bad.

No where near the support Bush got from dems, but not as much blame as what people would think. I also think a lot of it depends on how Gore deals with the Taliban and Al Qaeda

 

[Nivek]

A little, like genuine right wingers will call it out(and get told to shut up in the early years) BUT IN AN ACADEMY review, he come from the previous administration, that's something will weight a little against him

 

[cloistered scholar]

Gore listening to those who thought an attack was imminent cant be discounted.

 

[Sabin]

I've thought about this for a while. I think Al Gore would get blame from all sides for 9/11. He wouldn't get the shield for sure, but he also wouldn't get the sky high approval ratings either both fairly or unfairly. It's hard to imagine Gore projecting the same cowboy confidence. He'd be far more scripted and it would go over worse. The only reason I doubt if Articles of Impeachment would be filed is because Republicans suffered congressional losses after very recently impeaching Clinton and whether the comparisons are founded or not, people in Washington have very long memories about that stuff. They'd probably just pin their hopes on winning the midterms (which they probably would) and beating him in 2004.

It's also hard to imagine Joe Lieberman being as helpful a public face for the Gore administration as Cheney was. I think the Gore administration will end up appearing hapless even if that's not the truth behind the scenes.

I don't know if it's ASB for Gore to see a successful killing of Bin Laden a decade earlier, but I have to imagine that increased continuity between the Clinton and Gore administration would only work in Gore's favor.

 

[Nivek]

Gore listening to those who thought an attack was imminent cant be discounted.

Check Massive Multiplayer, but 911 was one of those weird Hail Maries looks easy to be avoidable when you saw it, but during execution was a trick play that fooled everyone, extra security(like some well place Air Marshall) can do wonders but the event itself will be a mess.

 

[cardcarrier]

Gore would be attacked by the republicans for not responding more aggressively to various Islamic terrorism in the 90s including the uss cole bombing in 2000

bush was able to successfully say he had just gotten there and because of delayed transition due to the election of 2000 and the 50-50 senate a lot of national security team hadn’t been confirmed; gore would be on year 9 of the same regime. There’s no way he doesn’t escape criticism

and as I will drop in any discussion of a hypothetical president gore. It’s a near certainty the stress and spotlight of that situation brings his affairs to light and or pushes forward his divorce. He like to have sex with people other than tipper gore and the public would not want to deal with that shit again. Him nearly winning the White House without that coming out or the dnc sending him into a black hole because they knew about his liking to have sex with other people was bizzarro world stuff

 

[brunohusker]

In 2001 through 2003 or so, I don’t think he’d get much. Yes, if something like that happened today, the partisan bickering would be much worse,, however, even then you had folks realize that this was a huge disaster and it affected everyone. Gore would have a honeymoon period he could stretch out to another term. Maybe by 2007 or so you see backlash and if the economy still goes into a recession then yeah he’s to blame.

However I think his tone in office would mirror Bush in that he’d probably be somewhat similar on foreign policy while better on the environment. It makes me wonder, who runs in 2008

 

[LivingSteam]

Current politics clouds people judgement.

Although Clinton era Republicans could bad, they are nothing compared to the behavior of Obama and Trump era Republicans.

I think the entirety of the Republicans in the Senate would come out in support of Gore (with legitimate questions still being raised with a professional investigation as to how this was allowed to happen).

Things would be different in the House though. It'd be a lot more unprofessional, and assholes like Gingrich would get the spotlight but I don't think most GOP house reps would be that bad.

No where near the support Bush got from dems, but not as much blame as what people would think. I also think a lot of it depends on how Gore deals with the Taliban and Al Qaeda

I do think that the trope of Gore getting blamed for 9/11 and even worse has been overblown. He doesn't get the boost that Bush got. If Liebermann is Vice President, that might become a problem.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

In the short term, I think Gore benefits from a rally-round-the-flag effect in the same way as Bush, although perhaps not quite to the same extent. If he does get blamed, it would be after TTL's version of the 9/11 Commission Report is released, and Gore starts getting asked questions about his role in Clinton's decisions with regard to bin Laden in the 1990s and why he (presumably) didn't act on the intelligence community's warnings in the summer of 2001.

 

[Minchandre]

I've always tended to wonder if 9/11 would have succeeded under Gore. Post-facto investigations found that one of the biggest contributors to them not being stopped was a generally botched handover from the Clinton to Bush administration's. Clinton to Gore would likely be barely a handover at all so much as a minor reshuffle.

 

[Catspoke]

POD: So Elio Gonzales drowns in the Ocean (Gore gets a little more Cuban American vote), and wins Florida. 9/11 happens just the same.

Gore will get some blame for just being part of the Clinton administration for sure. I think most of that will be forgotten by most people after December 2001.

Without Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, would William Cohen or whomever also adopt a "light impact" approach. Perhaps Gore could try to put more "boots on the ground".

I don't think it would be hard for liberal writers commentators to embrace this as a liberal holy mission. I remember some outrage from that side even over the Taliban destruction of idols (and of course the treatment of Women)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

The USA will "win" just like OTL. The force ratios are just too big.

And I don't see Gore invading Iraq.

So the USA could focus on the area through the early 2000's, with a lot more patience over casualties without Iraq going on..

 

[We'll Get Em Next Time]

In the immediate aftermath, little except from the far-right. But I think it may well be dubious enough to cost him 2004.

 

[RanulfC]

Something to keep in mind is that Gore had been dealing, (along with Clinton) with eight years of Republican obstructionism over both responses and actions in the Middle East. The general hypocrisy of the Republican's when it was said "You can't delay action till YOUR President is in office" was pretty manifest when that was exactly what the Republican's in Congress had been doing for the past eight years.

The idea that 9/11 might not have happened if Gore had been elected is quite possible on the other hand even if actionable intelligence had been obtained actually getting clearance from Congress TO act is more questionable. Bush's quip about not "shooting a cruise missile up a camel's butt" is telling when for the past eight years that's all Congress would authorize as a response!

Should 9/11 still happen there will likely not be a lot of 'official' blame from Congress but it will certainly ramp up from the "unofficial" talking head sources in order to use it as an issue in 2004. Blame will (as per OTL) get put on Iraq as soon as practical though Gore is as likely to go into Afghanistan as OTL he will resist going into Iraq. You can look to the GOP to use 9/11 and Iraq as rallying points for the rhetoric for 2004

Randy

 

[roderickgibsono]

As much as Bush.

 

[Salamander]

Considering that a Gore administration would have probably taken the threat warnings far more seriously, it is entirely possible that 9/11 might not have happened.

 

[mianfei]

Should 9/11 still happen there will likely not be a lot of 'official' blame from Congress but it will certainly ramp up from the "unofficial" talking head sources in order to use it as an issue in 2004. Blame will (as per OTL) get put on Iraq as soon as practical though Gore is as likely to go into Afghanistan as OTL he will resist going into Iraq. You can look to the GOP to use 9/11 and Iraq as rallying points for the rhetoric for 2004

I don't know if it's ASB for Gore to see a successful killing of Bin Laden a decade earlier, but I have to imagine that increased continuity between the Clinton and Gore administration would only work in Gore's favor.

I have thought myself that Gore would at least try to go after Bin Laden more directly, rather than focus on Ba‘athist Iraq to which Osama and al-Qa‘ida were very much opposed. (As for Iraq, the examples of Libya and even Egypt suggests the Ba‘athists might have been overthrown without intervention at some point, although Libya constitutes a very bad example for what would occur afterwards).

If Gore did get Bin Laden early, and did not run into trouble elsewhere in the Middle East or adjacent parts of Asia, it would be expected to help him in the 2002 midterms and in 2004. A second Gore term would give him the potential opportunity to shape the Supreme Court by at least replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist and the aging John Paul Stevens.

 

[Historyman 14]

I really don't see him winning 04. 9/11 and later dealing with stuff like the dot-com bubble. Gore simply would not have W image of a Cowboy with two guns in his holsters ready to take on the world.

Gore would become the new Bush Senior. (A VP under a popular President who had some success, but gets screw by the economy and better people running.)

The Democrats have had the White House from 1993 onwards, there's going to be a malaise in how people see the Democrats. They're going to lose 2004, there's just so much going against them even with a 9/11 rally around the flag, or a war in Afghanistan. The Republicans are going to win 2004, it's just a question of who is going to be their candidate for the election.

 

[Iwanh]

I don't know about Gore but I'm pretty sure Vice President Lieberman would be getting it quite bad.