For those who like such things...

September 11 is a day that will live in infamy for the United States of America. Terrorists slam a pair of planes into the World Trade Center, reducing both towers to rubble. Another hits the Pentagon, while a fourth is wrestled down to the ground in Pennsylvania. A shocked nation reels.

One change, however. In this alternative world, the attacks take place on September 11, 2000. It's an election year. Bill Clinton is still the lame-duck president. Al Gore and George W. Bush are in a virtual dead heat in the polls.

How does the Clinton administration respond to the terrorist attacks? What happens in the campaign? In the election? In New York?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2002

Answers

Oh, I hate these exercises so much, but I just can't resist.

Clinton, given his desire to send troops anywhere at anytime and seeing an opportunity to improve his image before leaving office, does pretty much what Bush did. Despite his problems, Clinton was a fairly astute foreign policy president. This segment of the crisis would probably have played out the same.

The difference is the election. Gore playing up his role of the consumate politician, jumps on the rhetoric bandwagon that the Republicans have created. Bush tries to whip the country into a fury. Gore wins the election (again!), drawing upon imagery of FDR and Pearl Harbor and the opportunity the crisis gave him to improve his image as more than a wimp, and the country chooses a man much more qualified for defining and executing a long term foreign policy towards terrorism.

So today we would have a president who's approach to foreign policy is a bit more complex than, "I'm the President! We're America! Fuck you!", our European allies wouldn't be starting to back away from our stance on terrorism, the crisis in Isreal would get at least some attention, topless statues in the Justice Department would not have screens placed in front of them, and Jimmy Carter would be much more involved in an advisory capacity to the president.

So how did I do?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

I more or less agree with Chris' theories regarding Gore being a more qualified foreign policy president than Bush. However, I wonder if Clinton or Gore would make the same sort of Fortress America domestic policy decisions (ie. Office of Homeland Security, terrorist witch- hunting, the whole airport security privatization debacle). Clinton's administration was not exactly the staunchest defender of civil liberties; nor was it at all shy with prosecuting innocent people that seemed to constitute a foreign threat (ie. the Wen Ho Lee case)

and would Jimmy Carter have been able to do Colin Powell's job? or would he have been more dove than moderate?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002