Gore criticizes Bush on more than just the timing of the war. He criticizes him on the administration's entire conceptualization of a war with Iraq. Two issues: Firstly, Gore is making these statements in the context, the narrative, and the terms the administration had already crafted in regards to Iraq. Therefore, they can be used in terms of psychoanalysis, but need to be taken in that context. Gore is no longer vice president, with access to information and advisers. He is not making policy decisions or crafting the historical narrative up to this point. He is simply seeing this from the perspective of a private citizen who had formerly been in government, and the narrative at the time in public discourse and the media was extremely biased. Secondly, the murky or general idea that Saddam Hussein was bad and should be removed from power remains an issue in Gore, but seems no more so one than under Clinton. Gore sees Iraq's violation of international law as a problem, but a secondary interest in the war on terror rather than an element of it, and believes that any effort against Iraq requires international consensus and UN resolution. Otherwise, it is damning to international goodwill and support for the war on terror. And Gore states that the Bush administration, via it's focus on Iraq, has squandered that already. To paraphrase Robert McNamara, when you lack the support of your allies it will, or at least should, make you assess the situation and consider why you lack that support. This was a concern for Gore where it was not one for Bush. This is not to say there will be no action against Iraq necessarily, but something on the order of air strikes or other military operations is much different from a war. Certainly from the war of 2003 compared to the war in 1991. And Gore criticizes the preemptive war doctrine of the administration. Taking this back to a newly inaugurated Gore in 2001, with access to the information and advisers as he would appoint them, I cannot see him pursuing a war against Iraq. I can see him making airstrikes, I can see him making other military strike operations as punishment for violation or perceived violation of the truce. In context, were Gore to have an interest in action more intense than that, he would seek international consensus and support, UN resolution and support, and Congressional support. And by perceiving Iraq as a secondary issue to the War on Terror rather than part of the War on Terror, it takes the wind out of the sails for support. Gore states in closing that if the United States feels Saddam Hussein presents an imminent threat, it may feel impatient for war, but international support requires the United States to take other steps short of or justifying that action.
EDIT:
In general terms, I argue that speech presents the alternate approach of Al Gore towards Iraq as methodical and analytical in a way that the Bush approach was not, because Bush had a set goal in doing what he ended up doing in Iraq.