One must keep in mind that Gore of 1992 was not the Gore of 2000. In 1988, Gore had run as a moderate to even conservative southern candidate. He was not a liberal of any stripe. And I am not here to defend Al Gore and his political life. I am here to be critical of the idea that the Iraq War, most certainly in the form it occurred in, would have taken place in an administration other than George Bush. As mentioned in to the 2002 speech to which you allude, Gore saw a war against Iraq as a distraction from the war against terrorism, as I have already stated. Not as part of the war on terror. That is a key distinction for the psychological portrait we can create for our Virtual Al Gore. To the OTL Al Gore, Saddam Hussein and the potential for an new war against Iraq is a distinct entity from, and a hindrance to the war against Al-Qaeda, their leaders, and the people who supported them in carrying out attacks against the United States, and terrorism in general. Bearing in mind also that this is Gore not as the president, not abreast of intelligence reports firsthand, but interpreting the narrative the administration has presented, which is being reported by a new media that is taking the Bush administration on it's word. This is Gore giving his feedback on information he is getting through a filter of administration bias. Therefore, Gore believes it is a world where it is certain fact that Hussein is attempting to get weapons of mass destruction that very second. And even so, he is still critical of administration policy and impending action. Our Virtual Gore, in the position of the presidency, would be presented with the intelligence first hand.
Even as a private citizen who believes reality as the administration is presenting it in regards to Iraq, 2002 Al Gore is not hammering the drum for the war the administration pursued. Gore's view on the Iraq situation is that it should be handled in steps. Gore believes the United States should get international support and international cooperation, and a UN resolution against Iraq. He believes the United States needs to be open to and review the opinions and feedback of it's allies, and that the Bush administration is not. He believes that while the United States could take action against Iraq alone, this would seriously hinder the separate issue of the war against terrorism. He also feels the administration's pressing for a war so hastily prevents time for careful analysis of the situation, and for proper planning of the situation, which can be communicated to the American people and American allies. He is critical of the administration turning it's focus from 9/11 and terrorism to Iraq, which squandered international goodwill and support for the United States in the war against terrorism. He is also critical of a policy of preemption, which has the risk of alienating our fellow nations and allies, and creating a precedent for preemptive conflict elsewhere and anywhere. He is critical of Bush policy toward Iraq for distracting from US operations in Afghanistan. I will simply quote another portion to save time:
WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO
I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.
Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.
Bearing in mind once again that this is Gore as a private citizen, which has no reason to believe the administration is lying or holding back anything that would distort the reality. This is an Al Gore who lives in a world where Saddam Hussein is, so far as he has been told, seeking to construct weapons of mass destruction. Our Virtual Gore would not have that situation. Our Virtual Gore would be receiving intelligence reports and analysis directly. Our Virtual Gore would see Iraq as distinct from the war against terrorism. Our Virtual Gore would keep focus on the war on terror and not so pressingly Iraq, which would not squander international support for US action. Our Virtual Gore would seek advice from our allies. Our Virtual Gore would seek to build an international coalition of support. Our Virtual Gore would try to analyze and consider the situation. He would take steps short of war against Iraq if they refuse to allow UN inspection. And he would take action only to the degree of punishing Iraq for violation of the truce agreement, which as I said is likely to involve air strikes.
In terms of Saddam Hussein and terrorism, as I pointed out in the Gore speech discussion, OTL Gore himself viewed the two as distinct entities. As intelligence reports stated, Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of terrorism or Al-Qaeda. His mocking and prodding at the United States is certainly wicked, but celebrating the 9/11 attacks does not equate to having orchestrated them, as intelligence reported there was no credible evidence of foreknowledge or involvement by Iraq. However, such images and statements did fuel the fire of the Bush administration narrative that Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11 and terrorism, and it was an easily exploited image to lend credence to the story the administration wanted to tell. The fact of the matter is Hussein was an evil human being. However, other dictators have mocked the United States. A bruised ego is not a decent casus belli. Our intelligence at the time stated there was no credible evidence of a tie between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The administration presented it to the American people as if there certainly were, and he was involved in 9/11. There was no certainty that Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction, and yet the administration sold it via the news media to the American people that we were absolutely certain. There was no waiting period, time for analysis, or time for collaboration. There were no steps taken short of war, though any decent leader treats war as a last resort. Instead, those two biased, half truth and falsehood driven narratives of terrorism and WMDs were combined, sold to the American people, and used to gain support for a war the American people would not otherwise have gone along with. The American people didn't believe Hussein was involved with 9/11 on their own. The administration convinced them. The American people did not know whether or not Hussein had WMDs. The administration convinced them.
This isn't 2016 rose colored glasses, because we don't live in the best of all possible world. It's not a hippie fantasy to think things would have been different for the better, when the fact is people had to go out of their way to make it different for the worse.