Absolutely. Remember, Bush would've brought all the Project-for-a-New-American-Century people in with him - none of them had any qualms about invading countries (didn't they explicitly point out Iraq and Libya as places to make "regime changes"?). But I don't think a President George Bush Jr would've done what Gore did in distancing the USA from Saudi Arabia - especially because of the ties between the Bush and Saud dynasties.
Then again, Gore had little problem restoring ties with other unsavory Middle Eastern religious states: like, say Iran.
Now don't get me wrong: while lots of Republicans (and a good number of Democrats) have screamed bloody murder about the restoration of ties with Iran, I see and can understand the reasoning. I have a relative in the Pentagon, you see, and he was able to give me the inside view of what was in the minds of people at the time. That attempted plot back in '01 really scared a lot of people in certain circles, not least because it was only caught in the final stages because some drunkard* got in a car-wreck with one of the would-be hijackers who had documents in his car. The leading brass got nervous once they realized that they had no real way to stop such a thing once it got started (like NORAD's lack of inner con-US radar to find a hijacked plane if it turned its beacon off), and once it was realized how many of those wannabes were Saudi...
Well, if you're going to have unpleasant associates, you might as well diversify and dilute them as best as possible, right? And to be fair, it could have been much worse. At least Gore was lucky enough to be able to make peace while Iran had a reformist in the Presidency, even if the power still sticks with the Ayatollah. So now we have two oil-rich supplier-allies who fund terrorists, but at least we can sort-of play them off each other. In theory.
I still wouldn't want to go over there to visit, though. Still not safe to be publicly aethiest, in Iran or Saudi.
(Fun fact: the drunk man was a Republican consultant on Bush's 2000 campaign. Imagine where he might be, or rather might not have been, had Bush won?)
I still don't like Gore's approach to the UN, though. It's been a waste of time and effort in most every regard, and it makes the arch-conservatives sound better when some of the loonies like Ann Coulter say ditch the whole thing. Sudan would still be a human rights disaster under debate at the UN if Gore hadn't actually lost patience for once, and we all know how useful the UN has been with Palestine, the Tripoli WMD program, or the recent Georgia crisis.
And let's not even mention the farce that Iraq has become, where Saddam is free to do as he wants and the UN inspectors give a conflicting report every six monthes...
But still, it's not like anything has been dystopic in the last eight years, say what you will about it.