George W. Bush To January 20, 2001

[Zyobot]

Thanks to what transpired from the start of his tenure in 2001 to its end in 2009, George W. Bush is remembered as one of the worst Presidents in modern American history. A Republican politician from Texas, known for his "Bushisms" and business career, he became a much-criticized figure for his response to the devastating 9/11 attacks with the Patriot Act at home, while the War on Terror waged abroad encompassed costly invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which have been cleaned up since. He signed broad tax cuts into law while initiating vast increases in spending, and the ravages of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 drew a response from him that was widely deemed lackluster. To top it all off, Bush was blamed for the onset of the 2008 Financial Crisis, a disaster widely considered to have been the most serious of its kind since the Great Depression from seventy-something years earlier. For those among other reasons, he is remembered as one of the most unpopular and unfit Presidents in America's contemporary memory--and he surely knows it.

But say that ASB decides to give old Dubya a second chance. With modern knowledge and experiences under his belt as well as determination to avoid his various OTL mistakes, what if today's George W. Bush woke up in the body of his younger self on January 20, 2001--the same day that he was first inaugurated as President of the United States?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

[stevep]

Jul 28, 2019 18:41:04 GMT Zyobot said:

Thanks to what transpired from the start of his tenure in 2001 to its end in 2009, George W. Bush is remembered as one of the worst Presidents in modern American history. A Republican politician from Texas, known for his "Bushisms" and business career, he became a much-criticized figure for his response to the devastating 9/11 attacks with the Patriot Act at home, while the War on Terror waged abroad encompassed costly invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which have been cleaned up since. He signed broad tax cuts into law while initiating vast increases in spending, and the ravages of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 drew a response from him that was widely deemed lackluster. To top it all off, Bush was blamed for the onset of the 2008 Financial Crisis, a disaster widely considered to have been the most serious of its kind since the Great Depression from seventy-something years earlier. For those among other reasons, he is remembered as one of the most unpopular and unfit Presidents in America's contemporary memory--and he surely knows it.

But say that ASB decides to give old Dubya a second chance. With modern knowledge and experiences under his belt as well as determination to avoid his various OTL mistakes, what if today's George W. Bush woke up in the body of his younger self on January 20, 2001--the same day that he was first inaugurated as President of the United States?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

  It might depend on how much he has to hide his identity and whether there's any sort of psychological collapse as a result.  - Having to adjust to everybody around you being nearly twenty years younger than they were the previous night is going to be awkward.  As is the fact he can't suddenly, especially in a democratic system, suddenly demand for instance a lot of CIA and other activity being targeted against a relative non-entity such as bin Laden was at the start of 20001 without questions being raised.  Also he will be restricted to a degree by political demands and factors.  For instance he can't make major changes to his political policy of OTL without possibly alienating a number of influential supporters and producing a lot of butterflies.

  Obviously one of his prime interests is likely to be preventing the Sept 01 attacks but again that will cause changes.  For instance without the shock of the deaths and destruction if the operation is nipped in the bud there is going to be a lot less public support for an invasion of Iraq and to a degree also of Afghanistan, even if bin Laden is still clearly implicated in being behind it and the Taliban still refuse to extradite him. 

  Given how much weather is dependent on so many factors you might not even get Katrina striking New Orleans, although you could have another big hurricane striking somewhere else at a different date.  However its possible that he could be more active in boosting disaster prevention and protection measures.  Whether he would go as far as supporting recognition of global warming, especially since that would mean problems with a lot of his supporters I don't know.  Similarly this might be a problem if he tried to reduce promised tax cuts.  However some trimming of the sails on both issues might be possibly and ideally he could sneak more regulation of banks and other financial institutions into government in some way that could reduce the impact of the OTL policies that lead to the 2008 crash.  However given the world-wide nature of the problem that could also be difficult.  Can see a lot of big interests arguing they can't be regulated more closely and restricted more than their competitors overseas say.

  As such he could probably try to do a lot but could be constrained by circumstances which means that a lot of the bigger issues still occur in some way or another.  The Sept 01 terrorist attacks and resultant increased US military activity could be the big factor which changes most however.

[Zyobot]

Jul 29, 2019 16:06:55 GMT stevep said:

Jul 28, 2019 18:41:04 GMT Zyobot said:

Thanks to what transpired from the start of his tenure in 2001 to its end in 2009, George W. Bush is remembered as one of the worst Presidents in modern American history. A Republican politician from Texas, known for his "Bushisms" and business career, he became a much-criticized figure for his response to the devastating 9/11 attacks with the Patriot Act at home, while the War on Terror waged abroad encompassed costly invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which have been cleaned up since. He signed broad tax cuts into law while initiating vast increases in spending, and the ravages of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 drew a response from him that was widely deemed lackluster. To top it all off, Bush was blamed for the onset of the 2008 Financial Crisis, a disaster widely considered to have been the most serious of its kind since the Great Depression from seventy-something years earlier. For those among other reasons, he is remembered as one of the most unpopular and unfit Presidents in America's contemporary memory--and he surely knows it.

But say that ASB decides to give old Dubya a second chance. With modern knowledge and experiences under his belt as well as determination to avoid his various OTL mistakes, what if today's George W. Bush woke up in the body of his younger self on January 20, 2001--the same day that he was first inaugurated as President of the United States?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

  It might depend on how much he has to hide his identity and whether there's any sort of psychological collapse as a result.  - Having to adjust to everybody around you being nearly twenty years younger than they were the previous night is going to be awkward.  As is the fact he can't suddenly, especially in a democratic system, suddenly demand for instance a lot of CIA and other activity being targeted against a relative non-entity such as bin Laden was at the start of 20001 without questions being raised.  Also he will be restricted to a degree by political demands and factors.  For instance he can't make major changes to his political policy of OTL without possibly alienating a number of influential supporters and producing a lot of butterflies.

  Obviously one of his prime interests is likely to be preventing the Sept 01 attacks but again that will cause changes.  For instance without the shock of the deaths and destruction if the operation is nipped in the bud there is going to be a lot less public support for an invasion of Iraq and to a degree also of Afghanistan, even if bin Laden is still clearly implicated in being behind it and the Taliban still refuse to extradite him. 

  Given how much weather is dependent on so many factors you might not even get Katrina striking New Orleans, although you could have another big hurricane striking somewhere else at a different date.  However its possible that he could be more active in boosting disaster prevention and protection measures.  Whether he would go as far as supporting recognition of global warming, especially since that would mean problems with a lot of his supporters I don't know.  Similarly this might be a problem if he tried to reduce promised tax cuts.  However some trimming of the sails on both issues might be possibly and ideally he could sneak more regulation of banks and other financial institutions into government in some way that could reduce the impact of the OTL policies that lead to the 2008 crash.  However given the world-wide nature of the problem that could also be difficult.  Can see a lot of big interests arguing they can't be regulated more closely and restricted more than their competitors overseas say.

  As such he could probably try to do a lot but could be constrained by circumstances which means that a lot of the bigger issues still occur in some way or another.  The Sept 01 terrorist attacks and resultant increased US military activity could be the big factor which changes most however.

Mm'kay. I can't comment on much aside from agreeing that he'll do his damndest to prevent 9/11 or an equivalent terrorist attack from happening on his watch again, other than what he might do about tax cuts and the 2008 Financial Crisis.

One argument I've seen raised is that the Democrats voting to extend credit to potentially unreliable borrowers (or something like that) is what helped exacerbate, if not cause the recession in the first place. Though I don't want to entertain or dismiss this notion in the ASB forum, Dubya--being the Republican that he is--might still view this as what happened and seek to put up a stronger defense against those who aim to get that legislation passed ITTL.

[stevep]

Jul 29, 2019 16:14:40 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 29, 2019 16:06:55 GMT stevep said:

  It might depend on how much he has to hide his identity and whether there's any sort of psychological collapse as a result.  - Having to adjust to everybody around you being nearly twenty years younger than they were the previous night is going to be awkward.  As is the fact he can't suddenly, especially in a democratic system, suddenly demand for instance a lot of CIA and other activity being targeted against a relative non-entity such as bin Laden was at the start of 20001 without questions being raised.  Also he will be restricted to a degree by political demands and factors.  For instance he can't make major changes to his political policy of OTL without possibly alienating a number of influential supporters and producing a lot of butterflies.

  Obviously one of his prime interests is likely to be preventing the Sept 01 attacks but again that will cause changes.  For instance without the shock of the deaths and destruction if the operation is nipped in the bud there is going to be a lot less public support for an invasion of Iraq and to a degree also of Afghanistan, even if bin Laden is still clearly implicated in being behind it and the Taliban still refuse to extradite him. 

  Given how much weather is dependent on so many factors you might not even get Katrina striking New Orleans, although you could have another big hurricane striking somewhere else at a different date.  However its possible that he could be more active in boosting disaster prevention and protection measures.  Whether he would go as far as supporting recognition of global warming, especially since that would mean problems with a lot of his supporters I don't know.  Similarly this might be a problem if he tried to reduce promised tax cuts.  However some trimming of the sails on both issues might be possibly and ideally he could sneak more regulation of banks and other financial institutions into government in some way that could reduce the impact of the OTL policies that lead to the 2008 crash.  However given the world-wide nature of the problem that could also be difficult.  Can see a lot of big interests arguing they can't be regulated more closely and restricted more than their competitors overseas say.

  As such he could probably try to do a lot but could be constrained by circumstances which means that a lot of the bigger issues still occur in some way or another.  The Sept 01 terrorist attacks and resultant increased US military activity could be the big factor which changes most however.

Mm'kay. I can't comment on much aside from agreeing that he'll do his damndest to prevent 9/11 or an equivalent terrorist attack from happening on his watch again, other than what he might do about tax cuts and the 2008 Financial Crisis.

One argument I've seen raised is that the Democrats voting to extend credit to potentially unreliable borrowers (or something like that) is what helped exacerbate, if not cause the recession in the first place. Though I don't want to entertain or dismiss this notion in the ASB forum, Dubya--being the Republican that he is--might still view this as what happened and seek to put up a stronger defense against those who aim to get that legislation passed ITTL.

  That's a possibility.  Would help if it restricted the damage caused by corruption of the fiscal system even if it only affected the US.

[Zyobot]

Jul 29, 2019 17:03:36 GMT stevep said:

Jul 29, 2019 16:14:40 GMT Zyobot said:

Mm'kay. I can't comment on much aside from agreeing that he'll do his damndest to prevent 9/11 or an equivalent terrorist attack from happening on his watch again, other than what he might do about tax cuts and the 2008 Financial Crisis.

One argument I've seen raised is that the Democrats voting to extend credit to potentially unreliable borrowers (or something like that) is what helped exacerbate, if not cause the recession in the first place. Though I don't want to entertain or dismiss this notion in the ASB forum, Dubya--being the Republican that he is--might still view this as what happened and seek to put up a stronger defense against those who aim to get that legislation passed ITTL.

  That's a possibility.  Would help if it restricted the damage caused by corruption of the fiscal system even if it only affected the US.

I wonder if Bush will do less to bail out big banks or at least add more conditions that they must abide by in exchange for government support, since he might think that subsidizing them is what helped embolden their more risky instincts and caused them to be less careful with their finances.

[stevep]

Jul 29, 2019 18:37:27 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 29, 2019 17:03:36 GMT stevep said:

  That's a possibility.  Would help if it restricted the damage caused by corruption of the fiscal system even if it only affected the US.

I wonder if Bush will do less to bail out big banks or at least add more conditions that they must abide by in exchange for government support, since he might think that subsidizing them is what helped embolden their more risky instincts and caused them to be less careful with their finances.

  Given the advantage of hindsight he may well want to but could be constrained by politics, especially since in the US money talks very loudly and the fiscal sector has a lot of it.  Suspect he will seek to restrain the banks but probably be limited as to how much he can actually do.

[Zyobot]

Jul 29, 2019 18:44:38 GMT stevep said:

Jul 29, 2019 18:37:27 GMT Zyobot said:

I wonder if Bush will do less to bail out big banks or at least add more conditions that they must abide by in exchange for government support, since he might think that subsidizing them is what helped embolden their more risky instincts and caused them to be less careful with their finances.

  Given the advantage of hindsight he may well want to but could be constrained by politics, especially since in the US money talks very loudly and the fiscal sector has a lot of it.  Suspect he will seek to restrain the banks but probably be limited as to how much he can actually do.

There'd probably also be some degree of infighting between Dubya and certain elements of the Republican Party on that matter (i.e. big business interests) as well, would there not?

And if the Democrats pick up the tension between the President and his base in government, then I wonder what they'd do in response to that.

[Zyobot]

I've read some stuff claiming that originally, G.W. Bush had a domestic agenda that he sought to carry out. But it got derailed by 9/11, which he'd surely seek to prevent from happening ITTL.

However, I'm unsure what he had in mind for the former, exactly. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself would be willing to fill in the blanks here?

[lordroel]

Aug 4, 2019 16:08:15 GMT Zyobot said:

I've read some stuff claiming that originally, G.W. Bush had a domestic agenda that he sought to carry out. But it got derailed by 9/11, which he'd surely seek to prevent from happening ITTL.

However, I'm unsure what he had in mind for the former, exactly. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself would be willing to fill in the blanks here?

Will he be re-elected ore was his re elected mostly because he was a wartime president.

[Zyobot]

Aug 4, 2019 16:12:46 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 4, 2019 16:08:15 GMT Zyobot said:

I've read some stuff claiming that originally, G.W. Bush had a domestic agenda that he sought to carry out. But it got derailed by 9/11, which he'd surely seek to prevent from happening ITTL.

However, I'm unsure what he had in mind for the former, exactly. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself would be willing to fill in the blanks here?

Will he be re-elected ore was his re elected mostly because he was a wartime president.

I don't know, since I can't say what the specifics of his first four years in the Oval Office will be this time around. He'll try to prevent 9/11 and the 2008 Financial Crisis to be sure, but how he might go about that is best left to those more knowledgeable than myself to speculate at the moment.

[alternatehistoryfox]

George W. Bush was more or less screwed over because he was a creature that was an enemy to his own political party. Remember, he gave the GOP the Latino vote on a silver platter and the GOP screwed him over for it. There is a reason that I call him a 'modern Grant'.

At that time GW Bush was more than willing to extend a hand to the Democrats when his own party was becoming 'our way or no way' that would come to the fore when Obama was elected.

[gillan1220]

Bush would feel the heaviness of the upcoming events of the decade. Now that he is armed with 19 years worth of knowledge, it would be hard to convince the CIA or the Pentagon to squat Bin-Laden like a bug before he could launch his attack. Preventing 9/11 would not mean it's all butterflies and rainbows. Cody of Alternate History Hub dedicated two videos about it:

What if 9/11 Never Happened?



What if the 'War on Terror' Never Happened?



I'm gonna have to agree with Cody. If no 9/11 happened or at least an equivalent of it, the U.S. would still fight a "war on terror" abroad. However, this would be done by sending Special Forces, arming their local partners (i.e. the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, these may also have implications where Ahmad Shah Massoud survives), drones, or cruise missile strikes from USN warships or submarines. Everything would mostly likely be fine until 2007-08 when the financial crisis would occur. And as Cody said, another terrorist attack WILL occur soon since it was just a matter of time. The origins and roots of 9/11 can be traced back to the Cold War in which itself could be traced back to World War I when the Middle East was ruined due to borders, religion, secularism, and nationalism.

The Decision That Ruined the Middle East

---

Just with most ISOT/ASB stories where one wakes up in their younger self or goes back in time, it always weighs heavy on our character because he/she would need to decide whether to sit idly and watch lives being lost in what incidents can now be considered as preventable. He/she would know that preventing such even with the best intentions may have unintended consequences in the alternate future. It may not be as apocalyptic as The Sound of Thunder, but it will also change the standing especially if a major event such as 9/11 is prevented or not.

On the side note, I did write a short story on this forum called All For One Woman (posted on November 16, 2020) where an unnamed young man from 2020 gets rewinded back in 2013 to meet his college dream girl three years earlier than our timeline, believing that such could change things such as sway her to be his girlfriend. I did not go beyond what happens next but what I did include was how 7 years worth of knowledge weigh on his decision making especially for the upcoming disasters and terrorist attacks that would happen in between these years. I made the ending simple as that, for his mission was to meet his dream girl. Beyond the ending however, he has now to decide whether to tell people to evacuate Tacloban City by November due to Typhoon Haiyan and with that, preventing the deaths of 6,000 people or whether to warn French authorities about the November 13, 2015 attacks.

That's the common dilemma with time travel stories.

[alternatehistoryfox]

The sad thing is that 9/11 is what I call a 'floating certainty', or an event that if it didn't happen the day it happened it would happen later. 9/11 happened because bin Ladden needed to shore up his command of AQ.

Also, the CIA had been giving warnings to Clinton about bin Ladden via their analytics division that bin Ladden was going to be an enemy of the US in the near future, Clinton denied the mission to eliminate bin Ladden because he wanted to have all that Cold War stabbing behind (or so the story goes). The only reason that Bush didn't get a go/any go report for assassinating bin Ladden before 9/11 is because bin Ladden hid himself well after Clinton denied the previous one.

EDIT:

It should be noted that AQ had various plans before 9/11, one of which was essentially '9/11, with actual bombs, worldwide edition with a pope assassination'. If the bombmaker in question didn't have bad luck when he was testing his 'undetectable' bomb methodology with a certain Philippine Airline flight and the resulting manhunt, it would be a whole lot worse. We're talking a literal crusade worse.

[gillan1220]

Nov 26, 2020 20:06:27 GMT alternatehistoryfox said:

The sad thing is that 9/11 is what I call a 'floating certainty', or an event that if it didn't happen the day it happened it would happen later. 9/11 happened because bin Ladden needed to shore up his command of AQ.

Also, the CIA had been giving warnings to Clinton about bin Ladden via their analytics division that bin Ladden was going to be an enemy of the US in the near future, Clinton denied the mission to eliminate bin Ladden because he wanted to have all that Cold War stabbing behind (or so the story goes). The only reason that Bush didn't get a go/any go report for assassinating bin Ladden before 9/11 is because bin Ladden hid himself well after Clinton denied the previous one.

EDIT:

It should be noted that AQ had various plans before 9/11, one of which was essentially '9/11, with actual bombs, worldwide edition with a pope assassination'. If the bombmaker in question didn't have bad luck when he was testing his 'undetectable' bomb methodology with a certain Philippine Airline flight and the resulting manhunt, it would be a whole lot worse. We're talking a literal crusade worse.

Clinton DID TRY to take down Bin Laden in retaliation for the U.S. Embassy attacks in East Africa: Operation Infinite Reach.


Photo: 1998 satellite image released by the U.S. Government of an Al-Qaeda training camp at Zhawar Kili, Afghanistan that was later bombed during Operation Infinite Reach. This release, was the first official release of previously classified satellite imagery by the U.S. government.

Statement on Military Strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan (1998)



Unfortunately, his administration failed to nip Bin Laden. As stated by the 9/11 Commission Report Report, all the U.S. Navy did was lob multimillion dollar Tomahawk missiles at a group of tents and pharmaceutical factory. Though it did kill a handful of AQ fighters, the fact that Bin Laden was not in those targeted locations in Sudan and Afghanistan made it an AQ propaganda victory.

Meanwhile, the other plan you mentioned is Operation Bojinka or the Manila Air Plot, which was the prelude to 9/11. The terrorists planned to assassinate Pope John Paul II when he visited Manila during World Youth Day 1995 along with simulatenous hijackings of commercial airliners from Asia to America and crashing them at various targets. Of course, one of the perpetuators of the 1993 World Trade Center and Philippine Airlines Flight 434 was arrested by the Philippine National Police after an accidental fire. This was credited to have save countless lives including the Pope.

Here is The National Geographic's take of PAL 434:

Aircrash Investigation | Bomb on Board - Part 1

[alternatehistoryfox]

Nov 27, 2020 13:53:42 GMT gillan1220 said:

Nov 26, 2020 20:06:27 GMT alternatehistoryfox said:

The sad thing is that 9/11 is what I call a 'floating certainty', or an event that if it didn't happen the day it happened it would happen later. 9/11 happened because bin Ladden needed to shore up his command of AQ.

Also, the CIA had been giving warnings to Clinton about bin Ladden via their analytics division that bin Ladden was going to be an enemy of the US in the near future, Clinton denied the mission to eliminate bin Ladden because he wanted to have all that Cold War stabbing behind (or so the story goes). The only reason that Bush didn't get a go/any go report for assassinating bin Ladden before 9/11 is because bin Ladden hid himself well after Clinton denied the previous one.

EDIT:

It should be noted that AQ had various plans before 9/11, one of which was essentially '9/11, with actual bombs, worldwide edition with a pope assassination'. If the bombmaker in question didn't have bad luck when he was testing his 'undetectable' bomb methodology with a certain Philippine Airline flight and the resulting manhunt, it would be a whole lot worse. We're talking a literal crusade worse.

Clinton DID TRY to take down Bin Laden in retaliation for the U.S. Embassy attacks in East Africa: Operation Infinite Reach.


Photo: 1998 satellite image released by the U.S. Government of an Al-Qaeda training camp at Zhawar Kili, Afghanistan that was later bombed during Operation Infinite Reach. This release, was the first official release of previously classified satellite imagery by the U.S. government.

Statement on Military Strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan (1998)



Unfortunately, his administration failed to nip Bin Laden. As stated by the 9/11 Commission Report Report, all the U.S. Navy did was lob multimillion dollar Tomahawk missiles at a group of tents and pharmaceutical factory. Though it did kill a handful of AQ fighters, the fact that Bin Laden was not in those targeted locations in Sudan and Afghanistan made it an AQ propaganda victory.

Meanwhile, the other plan you mentioned is Operation Bojinka or the Manila Air Plot, which was the prelude to 9/11. The terrorists planned to assassinate Pope John Paul II when he visited Manila during World Youth Day 1995 along with simulatenous hijackings of commercial airliners from Asia to America and crashing them at various targets. Of course, one of the perpetuators of the 1993 World Trade Center and Philippine Airlines Flight 434 was arrested by the Philippine National Police after an accidental fire. This was credited to have save countless lives including the Pope.

Here is The National Geographic's take of PAL 434:

Aircrash Investigation | Bomb on Board - Part 1

From what I understand, Clinton was against assassinating bin Laden because he wanted to shift away from all the Cold War stabbery... but then again the only way that bin Laden was killed in OTL was because we had damn good intel on his whereabouts (via significant numbers of HUMINT and SIGINT assets) and sent several squads of SpecOps into the compound to make certain it was bin Laden and that he was dead.