What if 9/11 happened in 2004 or not at all?

[stratego]

If the attack on WTC happened in early 2004, and Bush handled it the way he handled it in 2001, he'll probably get reelected. It would be the last chance he has to show his leadership. But if 9/11 actually happen 9/11/2004 his chances of getting reelected are slimmer, because he wouldn't have enough time to work things out before the election.

 

[BasketCase]

If 9/11 had happened this year instead of 2001, Bush would (probably) have won slam-dunk re-election.

First off, Bush could simply blame all America's problems (sinking economy or whatever) on the attack.

Second, in times of war, Americans lean to the right, and the Republicans are more pro-military than the Democrats.

And America would have been less isolated; Iraq War #2 would have happened first, then our invasion of Afghanistan. While the rest of the world objected to Afghanistan, they didn't object as loudly, and also acknowledged that we had a pretty good reason to be there. Less-offensive offensive comes after more-offensive offensive, thereby partially mollifying world opinion.

But don't take my word for it, this is all just supposition.

Edit: for my part, my opinion would be the same. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would still have occurred, and I think both invasions were the right thing to do.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

If 9/11 never happened Israel would of not got the sympathy from the rest of the world community to continue it's genocide of the west bank...believe me Israel came out best in pre-9/11 politics!

 

[test_specimen]

THink again, I dont think that the war in Iraq is the main reason of hatred toward the usa around the world. This event is like a needle in a hay stack!!!!

Isolation is not the same as hatred. The US might be hated in the Arab world, but this was just intensified, not caused, by the war in Iraq. The isolation is (at least for my part) most visible in Bush's failure to get international support for the war in Iraq.

If 9/11 had happened this year instead of 2001, Bush would (probably) have won slam-dunk re-election.

First off, Bush could simply blame all America's problems (sinking economy or whatever) on the attack.

He did and does blame all problems on either 9/11 or Clinton. If 9/11 had happened this year he would have to assume at least some responsabilty for his time as president since the effects of the attack could not play into the economic situation prior to the attack.

The strongest criticism of Bush stems from the distrust has received from his foreign policy. If he were more popular abroad that would make foreign policy almost a non-issue which would mean the contest would be about the economy. Bush's most serious weakness stems from the major mistakes that occured in his foreign policy.

His foreign policy prior to 9/11 was non-existant, I wonder if he would have really changed that. The mismanagement that occured after 9/11 only occured because he was forced to start a foreign policy. I still remember that he had a huge bonus after the attacks which he completely lost until the war in Iraq.

On your "economy is a bonus"-thing: not really. Except for granting tax breaks to the rich and large companies (which has not improved the job market situation) the major economic events during his term were Enron and the steel tariffs (which were probably the stupidest thing to do in the situation).