Talk Elections

Let's suppose that 9/11 happens in 1997 say, instead of 2001. Clinton as such has roughly four years to deal with it. What do you suppose he might have done differently from Bush?

I think, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Clinton would've definitely responded with cruise missile strikes against presumed terrorist targets. He'd also reap the same popularity boost that Bush did from the "rally 'round the flag" effect. Yes, there'd be questions about the administration's actions (i.e. was everything done to prevent the attacks; etc.), but I think it'd (for the time being, anyway) be drowned out by the patriotic fervor. It'd be seen as Clinton's Pearl Harbor moment.

Going forward, he'd certainly aim to oust the Taliban, although he might be more likely to hope airpower & local Afghans could do it all. On the other hand, he might take a "once-burned" approach & respond even more forcefully & thoroughly than Bush did to perceived threats elsewhere in the Middle East & North Africa, although Iraq would certainly not be very high on his list.

Also, a Clinton-initiated military operation against the Taliban/war in Afghanistan wouldn't have been run by the Bush Administration's neo-con hardliners &, thus, would probably look like a great big special ops mission instead.

An earlier 9/11 would also have long-term consequences for Afghanistan itself as well, as Ahmad Shah Massoud would've still been alive (having been originally assassinated on 9/9/2001) to provide the US-led coalition with a strong & legitimate ally in the country, as he was a national hero who'd been fighting Soviets, the Taliban, & warlords for years, all the while keeping his own holdings safe & sound. This would be much better than Karzai's corrupt & inept government, would allow the US to deploy less forces on the ground, & would lead to a more stable country.

Clinton might have handled Tora Bora differently, and if Bin Laden is captured or killed as a result, Clinton would become extremely popular.

Terrorism being on the agenda is sure to prevent Bush from being the 2000 GOP nominee while benefitting McCain.

No way. W. would've undoubtedly shifted to being gung-ho & interventionist rather than the isolationist tone that he struck for most of the campaign, but he was as heavy a favorite for the 2000 nomination as Dole was in 1996, Poppa Bush in 1992 & 1988, & Reagan in 1980. Some truly major incident that personally discredits W. would have to happen to see him lose the nomination to McCain.

EDIT: grammar

I meant that voters would want someone with overseas experience.

 Ahmad Shah Massoud was killed precisely because 9/11 was about to happen - so that he couldn't lend his authority, connections, influence and skill to aid the USA in the invasion that both the Taliban and Osama KNEW would be the result of 9/11.

They were not 1960s Batman villains but real people.