Discussion:
President Al Gore
(too old to reply)
Tim Johnson
2008-10-20 17:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.

Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?

Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
j***@faf.mil.fi
2008-10-21 11:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
No, except that in this timeline, the Coalition forces actually manage
to capture Osama in Afghanistan! He's strapped in a Clockwork-Orange-
style dentist's chair and emotionally saturated with U2 music videos
until he finally declares that he has healed. After his release, Osama
dedicates the following years for a work as an activist in pressure
groups for the Kosovar independence.
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
Hell no! The world will continue to make easy money and everyone
remains happy as a clam. Meanwhile, the climate change is completely
averted, as Bush Junior, after losing the election, starts a new
business manufacturing high-tech wind turbines and solar panels with
his dad. The year 2007 is the coldest one ever recorded, with polar
bears running around Helsinki city centre.

Saddam steps down peacefully after seeing Osama's fate, Iraq is never
invaded and Muqtada al-Sadr becomes the UN ambassadour of the new
democratic government. The oil price stays low, and the Russian
ascendancy is completely aborted. Putin admits that he has failed as a
politician, and quietly resigns. Anna Politkovskaya is never
assassinated and the South Ossetian war does not take place. Woo-hoo!

North Korea and Iran scrap their silly atomic programs, and the Fox
Network will show nothing but porn, day and night.



Cheers,

J. J.
David Johnson
2008-10-21 22:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
and the Fox
Network will show nothing but porn, day and night.
So, no real change there...
j***@faf.mil.fi
2008-10-22 10:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
and the Fox Network will show nothing but porn, day and night.
So, no real change there...
Woops, I actually meant to write "_gay_ porn". You know, without
blurring and the exposition agenda.

(I may still be out to lunch, given that I'm not actually able to
watch Fox.)




Cheers,

J. J.
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-22 10:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by David Johnson
and the Fox Network will show nothing but porn, day and night.
So, no real change there...
Woops, I actually meant to write "_gay_ porn". You know, without
blurring and the exposition agenda.
(I may still be out to lunch, given that I'm not actually able to
watch Fox.)
Cheers,
J. J.
Now you can

http://foxattacks.com/decency/
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/18865-fox-news-porn
http://foxnewsporn.com/

repetitious but then...
Sam R.
2008-10-22 00:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
No, except that in this timeline, the Coalition forces actually manage
to capture Osama in Afghanistan! He's strapped in a Clockwork-Orange-
style dentist's chair and emotionally saturated with U2 music videos
until he finally declares that he has healed.
I was cured alright.

* * *

Twas Nasreddin, and his droogs, sitting around the old Kandahar tea
house with not much pretty rubelly, when what but old dim Rashid had
but to say, "Nasreddin, let us have a glass of milk." Now Rashid
having enough money for tea, suggested that he would have his with
sugar; but did not have enough for sugar for the Hodja. After much
bickering Nasreddin agreed that he would drink first, and then Rashid
would sugar his milk, and drink. Nasreddin spoke to the waiter, "I am
quite happy," as a great bowl of substance was brought forth, "I shall
be drinking my tea with salt."
SolomonW
2008-10-21 11:12:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <Dm3Lk.2439$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, timjohnson58
@yahoo.com says...
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
It is not a depression, it is a recession.
Michael G. Koerner
2008-10-21 14:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
@yahoo.com says...
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
It is not a depression, it is a recession.
Likely the same lending industry implosion and pretty much on schedule, if not
a bit sooner, the seeds of which nearly ALL predate your POD.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
tankfixer
2008-10-21 20:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
@yahoo.com says...
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
It is not a depression, it is a recession.
Under Al Gore it would be a depression by 2008 after he imposes the
Kyoto aggreement on the US in 2002 and the economy crashes.
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-21 20:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by tankfixer
Post by SolomonW
@yahoo.com says...
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
It is not a depression, it is a recession.
Under Al Gore it would be a depression by 2008 after he imposes the
Kyoto aggreement on the US in 2002 and the economy crashes.
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
Or the creation of new "green" products ten years in advance of
anything anyone else is even anticipating makes the American economy
the leader again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28friedman.html
tankfixer
2008-10-21 21:28:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <e6e28528-0ff6-4d19-b5cc-
***@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, ***@earthlink.net
says...
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by tankfixer
Post by SolomonW
@yahoo.com says...
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
It is not a depression, it is a recession.
Under Al Gore it would be a depression by 2008 after he imposes the
Kyoto aggreement on the US in 2002 and the economy crashes.
Or the creation of new "green" products ten years in advance of
anything anyone else is even anticipating makes the American economy
the leader again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28friedman.html
How does hobbing the economy cause that to happen ?
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-21 23:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by tankfixer
In article <e6e28528-0ff6-4d19-b5cc-
says...
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by tankfixer
Post by SolomonW
@yahoo.com says...
Post by Tim Johnson
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
It is not a depression, it is a recession.
Under Al Gore it would be a depression by 2008 after he imposes the
Kyoto aggreement on the US in 2002 and the economy crashes.
Or the creation of new "green" products ten years in advance of
anything anyone else is even anticipating makes the American economy
the leader again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28friedman.html
How does hobbing the economy cause that to happen ?
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
What is/was Al Gore's big claim to fame? He invented the internet and
he is a big backer of green. So, instead of a dot com bubble in his
first year in office he creates a program of applying the expertise
of the dot coms to the other problem of the need to go green. Eight
years ahead of OTL the grant money is going into greenery and the
companies that only had to scribble out an outline to get investment
are off and rolling. You know the House will be slightly Republican
and in OTL the Senate is 50-50. Success might bend the margins
slightly but there will be no wars and no need for spending billions
on defense with no return on invetstment.
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-21 12:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
Gotta ask: does Al ignore the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
August 6, 2001 PDB article?

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential
daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of
the original document were not made public by the White House for
security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden
since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin
Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin
Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according
to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same
time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to
the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin
Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the
U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the
idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in
---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped
facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah
was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although
Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations
years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates
surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993,
and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were
arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have
resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently
maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our
embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member
lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York
was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational
threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that
Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of
"Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations
throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the
FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying
that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks
with explosives.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo

original text
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
Allyn Gibson
2008-10-23 03:20:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
Gotta ask: does Al ignore the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
August 6, 2001 PDB article?
It probably doesn't even get that far. Gore would have been likely to
implement the retaliation plan Clinton's anti-terrorism team put
together for the USS Cole bombing, if Clinton didn't put it into play
himself in his final month in office.

The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack and
its political fallout. If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.

Either way, al-Qaeda bases get their noses bloodied in January 2001.

This pushes back planning for the World Trade Center attack, as
al-Qaeda decides to play things more cautiously. Perhaps it's long
enough that at least one of the terror cells, if not all four, are
broken up.

9-11 doesn't happen. Either it doesn't happen at all, or it doesn't
unfold in the same way on the same day.

Allyn
j***@faf.mil.fi
2008-10-23 08:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allyn Gibson
The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack
and its political fallout. If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.
Uh, well, in that case, why didn't Clinton simply do the same in our
timeline? That is, inform Bush of the situation, consult him, ask his
opinion as the president-elect, and then launch the strike with Bush's
blessing, which would have probably been forthcoming?

Or did the political divisions really trump the national security in
the United States at that time?



Cheers,

J. J.
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-23 10:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by Allyn Gibson
The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack
and its political fallout. If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.
Uh, well, in that case, why didn't Clinton simply do the same in our
timeline? That is, inform Bush of the situation, consult him, ask his
opinion as the president-elect, and then launch the strike with Bush's
blessing, which would have probably been forthcoming?
Or did the political divisions really trump the national security in
the United States at that time?
Cheers,
J. J.
Bush had a mind set that operated on two principles: Everything Bill
Clinton ever did is wrong and I won't do any of them and my father was
a failure so I will undo everything he did and get a second term.
j***@faf.mil.fi
2008-10-23 15:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Bush had a mind set that operated on two principles: Everything Bill
Clinton ever did is wrong and I won't do any of them and my father was
a failure so I will undo everything he did and get a second term.
And how exactly does the second invasion of Iraq fit with that second
principle?

ObWI: convinced that his father was a failure and the mistakes of the
previous generation should not be repeated, Bush Junior decides
against the Iraqi Freedom and invades some other place after
Afghanistan, either North Korea or Venezuela. Effects?


Cheers,

J. J.
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-23 17:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by Jack Linthicum
Bush had a mind set that operated on two principles: Everything Bill
Clinton ever did is wrong and I won't do any of them and my father was
a failure so I will undo everything he did and get a second term.
And how exactly does the second invasion of Iraq fit with that second
principle?
ObWI: convinced that his father was a failure and the mistakes of the
previous generation should not be repeated, Bush Junior decides
against the Iraqi Freedom and invades some other place after
Afghanistan, either North Korea or Venezuela. Effects?
Cheers,
J. J.
Saddam tried to kill Daddy, thus was proven in one step that Saddam
was evil and Daddy weak. Junior would put things right by knocking off
Saddam and getting that second term. I don't think "generation" is the
appropriate word.
eatfastnoodle
2008-10-23 17:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by Jack Linthicum
Bush had a mind set that operated on two principles: Everything Bill
Clinton ever did is wrong and I won't do any of them and my father was
a failure so I will undo everything he did and get a second term.
And how exactly does the second invasion of Iraq fit with that second
principle?
I don't know how you see it, but to me, the logic is pretty clear.

His father resisted the temptation of going all the way to Baghdad and
ordered halt after Iraqi troops were out of Kuwait. The ensuing
Republican whining lasted well over a decade. Bush junior and his
advisors saw it as a mistake, and they decided to reverse it and
finished the job they thought Bush senior should have allowed them to
do back in 91.
Stan Boleslawski
2008-10-23 19:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by Jack Linthicum
Bush had a mind set that operated on two principles: Everything Bill
Clinton ever did is wrong and I won't do any of them and my father was
a failure so I will undo everything he did and get a second term.
And how exactly does the second invasion of Iraq fit with that second
principle?
ObWI: convinced that his father was a failure and the mistakes of the
previous generation should not be repeated, Bush Junior decides
against the Iraqi Freedom and invades some other place after
Afghanistan, either North Korea or Venezuela. Effects?
With George W. as president, the factor of finishing up what his dad
started
and Saddam's plot to kill his father both played a role in his
obsession with
Iraq, never mind Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfie, Perle, etc. fueling
this
obsession. With everything otherwise playing out like OTL, this isn't
going
to exist with NK or Venezuela.

Now, if Bush's leading opponent in the GOP primaries defeats him (no
names mentioned because of current events) in 2000, you'd see a
similar obsession with North Korea on the part of THAT POTUS as
Bush had towards Iraq.

The best possible POD for a situation in which Bush is prime to
take out Kim Jong Il would be if there's a renewal of hostilities in
the
Korean Peninsula during his father's term in office. Say that NK
pulling out of the Non Proliferation Treaty happens in 1990 rather
than 1993, and leads to a flaring of tensions such that DPRK troops
overrun the Joint Security Area and start rolling into South Korea.
I suspect the knock ons and butterflies from a "Second Korean
War" (as the first has not ended) would be great enough as to
make the '90s and '00s completely different from OTL.

Best,
Stan B.
Raymond Speer
2008-10-26 14:30:53 UTC
Permalink
THE PRINCE AND THE REGULAR GUY:
A Documentary by Michael Moore

NARRATION

(Over footage of Gore being applauded at a black tie dinner, or going on
stage in front of a cheering convention.)

Al Gore had his way to the top greased from birth. The priviliged son
of a powerful Senator, young Gore was the Prince from Tennessee, and his
arrival at the White House was predicted thirty years before it
happened.

(Over footage of George Bush in blue jeans, a cowboy hat, and boots
cleaning a stall in a barn.)

Dubya never had such perks. He never claimed the grades or the paternal
praise that his brother, Jeb, got, and he never sank his drill into a
gusher.

INTERVIEW: GEORGE W. BUSH

C'mon, Mikey, I don't think I should be envious of Al Gore, anymore
than I should envy my brother, Jeb. If having brains was basketball,
they are nine feet tall and I am five-ten. They got ahead of me fair and
square.

MICHAEL MOORE

And John McCain?

GEORGE W. BUSH

Well, Idid get ahead of him and made it up the straight of way.

NARRATION

(Over footage from the Repub campaign of Two Thousand: Dubya and John
McCain in crowds, streets, corridors and podiums.)

Dubya tried hard and made it to the Republican nomination in the year
that Clinton had to leave the White House, after that powerful President
had anointed Al Gore as his successor.

VOICEOVER: GEORGE W. BUSH

I knew the odds was against me since Clinton dang near crowned Gore as
President while I was busy as Governor of Texas. But I wanted to do
something practical for the kids of America by reforming public
education and I did not think that Prince Al was interested in such down
to Earth changes.

NARRATION

The pundits and politicians all scorned Dubya but the people didn't and
the average guy from Midland, Texas, won the Republican challenge to
Al Gore's coronation.

(Over footage of Bush campaigning, including Bush & Gore cordially
shaking hands in the sombre environment of Ralph Nader's funeral.)

VOICEOVER: GEORGE W. BUSH

There was a nice fella from New York, Ralph Nader, who got run over by a
bus. Damn shame. If he had lived, I would have put him in my Cabinet.

I met Al Gore at the funeral and he was snooty to me then, just as he
was in the debates we had later. I guess that is just natural with him.

On Election Night, my brother Jeb called from Florida and apologized to
me for not delivering that state to me. I said, Don't worry, hoss, we
came damn close to doing the impossible. We nearly beat Gore.

NARRATION

(Over footage of an explosion in mountain terrain. Pictures of Bin Ladin
at a picnic.)

The first to die were a hundred Muslims in Afghanistan on September 11,
two thousand and one. Guided missles sent by Al Gore exploded in a
mountain retreat run by Saudi Arabian contractor Osamma bin Laden. On
conjecture that bin Laden had ordered men to hijack aiplanes and crash
them into the Twin Towers, several Saudi Arabian tourists had been
arrested in the United States that same day.

VOICEOVER: GEORGE W. BUSH

(Over footage of the Arabs surrounded by cops & lawyers --- crowd scenes
--- artist sketches of trials.)

I would like to think that the gummint was honest when it charged all
those guys in the airline hijack plot. Though I don't think they would
have got far on box cutters as weapons,
I just don't know what to think.
Michael G. Koerner
2008-10-25 16:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Post by Allyn Gibson
The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack
and its political fallout. If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.
Uh, well, in that case, why didn't Clinton simply do the same in our
timeline? That is, inform Bush of the situation, consult him, ask his
opinion as the president-elect, and then launch the strike with Bush's
blessing, which would have probably been forthcoming?
Or did the political divisions really trump the national security in
the United States at that time?
Don't forget the litigation over the election and the intense hatred of GWB
that the seemingly endless Florida vote counting mess whipped up on the
Democrat side. It was as nasty then as the liberal hatred of Sarah Palin is now.

There were definitely some deep resentments of GWB from Democrats and yes,
IMHO they could have easily gotten in the way of that.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Doug
2008-10-24 03:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allyn Gibson
The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack and
its political fallout. If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.
Either way, al-Qaeda bases get their noses bloodied in January 2001.
This pushes back planning for the World Trade Center attack, as
al-Qaeda decides to play things more cautiously. Perhaps it's long
enough that at least one of the terror cells, if not all four, are
broken up.
9-11 doesn't happen. Either it doesn't happen at all, or it doesn't
unfold in the same way on the same day.
a tantalizing scenario, but aren't all the 9-11 hijackers in the US (or
Hamburg?) by 1/01? I seem to recall that an attack on AQ in Afghanistan by
this point would have had negligible impact upon the 9-11 attack. and as
far as AQ playing it cautiously ... I ain't seeing it. they have sunk a lot
into the plan and would very happily portray 9-11 as in part retaliation for
the US attack, especially if there were Afghan civillian casualties.

an interesting possibility would be a Special Forces raid on the AQ camps
that seizes the right laptop, enabling the FBI to round up the would-be 9-11
hijackers a few weeks later.

cheers,

Doug
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-24 09:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by Allyn Gibson
The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack and
its political fallout.  If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.
Either way, al-Qaeda bases get their noses bloodied in January 2001.
This pushes back planning for the World Trade Center attack, as
al-Qaeda decides to play things more cautiously.  Perhaps it's long
enough that at least one of the terror cells, if not all four, are
broken up.
9-11 doesn't happen.  Either it doesn't happen at all, or it doesn't
unfold in the same way on the same day.
a tantalizing scenario, but aren't all the 9-11 hijackers in the US (or
Hamburg?) by 1/01?  I seem to recall that an attack on AQ in Afghanistan by
this point would have had negligible impact upon the 9-11 attack.  and as
far as AQ playing it cautiously ... I ain't seeing it.  they have sunk a lot
into the plan and would very happily portray 9-11 as in part retaliation for
the US attack, especially if there were Afghan civillian casualties.
an interesting possibility would be a Special Forces raid on the AQ camps
that seizes the right laptop, enabling the FBI to round up the would-be 9-11
hijackers a few weeks later.
cheers,
Doug
How about the FBI equating the telephone calls to Yemen with the
students at the flight school in San Diego and checking out the school?
Doug
2008-10-25 21:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
an interesting possibility would be a Special Forces raid on the AQ camps
that seizes the right laptop, enabling the FBI to round up the would-be 9-11
hijackers a few weeks later.
cheers,
Doug
How about the FBI equating the telephone calls to Yemen with the
students at the flight school in San Diego and checking out the school?
one of the sad things about 9-11 is all the real easy POD's that would avoid
it ...

cheers,

Doug
eatfastnoodle
2008-10-24 17:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by Allyn Gibson
The reason Clinton -didn't- launch the retaliatory strike against
al-Qaeda was because he didn't want to saddle Bush with the attack and
its political fallout.  If Gore is Clinton's successor, there's no
reason why Clinton couldn't have given the order with Gore's blessing,
or let Gore make the decision in late January 2001.
Either way, al-Qaeda bases get their noses bloodied in January 2001.
This pushes back planning for the World Trade Center attack, as
al-Qaeda decides to play things more cautiously.  Perhaps it's long
enough that at least one of the terror cells, if not all four, are
broken up.
9-11 doesn't happen.  Either it doesn't happen at all, or it doesn't
unfold in the same way on the same day.
a tantalizing scenario, but aren't all the 9-11 hijackers in the US (or
Hamburg?) by 1/01?  I seem to recall that an attack on AQ in Afghanistan by
this point would have had negligible impact upon the 9-11 attack.  and as
far as AQ playing it cautiously ... I ain't seeing it.  they have sunk a lot
into the plan and would very happily portray 9-11 as in part retaliation for
the US attack, especially if there were Afghan civillian casualties.
an interesting possibility would be a Special Forces raid on the AQ camps
that seizes the right laptop, enabling the FBI to round up the would-be 9-11
hijackers a few weeks later.
cheers,
Doug
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But I knew somebody who considered Bin
Laden a master of strategy who has deep understanding about American
politics and economy. The argument goes like this:

The reason Bin Laden decided to strike at the very heart of American
capitalism in such a spectacular fashion is no coincidence. It's not a
result of some innate desire by a bloodthirsty terrorists to strike as
hard and as deep as possible. He did it with the carefully planned
strategic objectives in mind, basically he knew beforehand that US
government, under an self-proclaimed cowboy president would strike
back in such knee jerk fashion that the ultimate fallout from American
rampage would cost America global good will and tremendous amount of
resources. Some went even further by asserting Bin Laden might even
see way before 911 that the Fed would flood the market with cheap
credit to staunch the economic fallout of 911, thus setting the stage
for what we are experiencing right now: a dramatic financial melt-down
that threatens the very foundation of American power.

Yes, it's very much a conspiracy theorist's mumble-jumbling, but if
Bin Laden were really this smart, no wonder 7 years after 911, America
is stuck in a shitty state, thanks in no small part to the series of
decisions made by Bush white house and the Fed in response to 911
Jerry Kraus
2008-10-21 15:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
The 911 attack was an attack on the Bush family. 911 does not occur
if Al Gore is elected President, because Al Gore is associated with
the relatively Muslim-friendly Clinton Presidency, and not with George
Bush senior's Gulf War.
Scott Eiler
2008-10-22 18:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
The 911 attack was an attack on the Bush family.  911 does not occur
if Al Gore is elected President, because Al Gore is associated with
the relatively Muslim-friendly Clinton Presidency, and not with George
Bush senior's Gulf War.
I'll just mention briefly, al-Qaeda had a low-level war against the
United States all through the Clinton/Gore administration.

9/11 still happens, and the Afghan war proceeds as in OTL. Question
is, what happens when the world leaves Iraq alone? Probably Iraq
muddles through in roughly the same way that North Korea has. Which
is to say, it's still no fun to be an Iraqi, and it sucks to be a
Kurd, but no international incidents.
James Nicoll
2008-10-22 19:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
The 911 attack was an attack on the Bush family.  911 does not occur
if Al Gore is elected President, because Al Gore is associated with
the relatively Muslim-friendly Clinton Presidency, and not with George
Bush senior's Gulf War.
I'll just mention briefly, al-Qaeda had a low-level war against the
United States all through the Clinton/Gore administration.
9/11 still happens, and the Afghan war proceeds as in OTL. Question
is, what happens when the world leaves Iraq alone? Probably Iraq
muddles through in roughly the same way that North Korea has. Which
is to say, it's still no fun to be an Iraqi, and it sucks to be a
Kurd, but no international incidents.
Or Iraq uses the WoT to normalize relations with the West.
Ditto for Iran, who are not keen on Al Qaeda.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Jack Linthicum
2008-10-22 19:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
The 911 attack was an attack on the Bush family.  911 does not occur
if Al Gore is elected President, because Al Gore is associated with
the relatively Muslim-friendly Clinton Presidency, and not with George
Bush senior's Gulf War.
I'll just mention briefly, al-Qaeda had a low-level war against the
United States all through the Clinton/Gore administration.
9/11 still happens, and the Afghan war proceeds as in OTL.  Question
is, what happens when the world leaves Iraq alone?  Probably Iraq
muddles through in roughly the same way that North Korea has.  Which
is to say, it's still no fun to be an Iraqi, and it sucks to be a
Kurd, but no international incidents.
        Or Iraq uses the WoT to normalize relations with the West.
Ditto for Iran, who are not keen on Al Qaeda.
--http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicollhttp://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll(For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Possibility of a paid off coup that takes a dazed Saddam Hussein and
his two sons off the throne and into exile. Question then is whether a
Gore administration takes Osama out in the Tora Bora mousetrap. Gary
Berntsen says an American unit coulda woulda filled the trap and
either captured or killed Ben Laden and his group. In OTL the task was
assigned to Afghan "allies".

One aspect that is interesting is Gore knew of and promoted the
rendition of bad guys.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/al-gore-was-for-extraordinary.html
eatfastnoodle
2008-10-23 07:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
Does this change the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
Does the great depression of 2008 still occur?
Depression of 2008 will still occur since the dot com bubble will
burst and Enron will still implode, Greenspan will still resort to
flooding the market with cheap credit, thus inflating the housing
bubble. But without the money wasted in Iraq (I don't know about 911,
but I guess everybody agrees that under a Gore administration, the
chance of him ordering the same disastrous invasion to go ahead is
pretty slim), the government will have more wiggle room, you know,
less deficit in the first place and less debt for not squandering
trillions in Iraq.
David Tenner
2008-10-27 05:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Johnson
Al Gore is elected president of the U.S. in November 2000.
You know, surprisingly few people realize that Gore would probably never have
been elected President had there been no East Tennessee.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/7d16d716d8189c79
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...