Al Gore from 1992

Well, I normally don't reply to people who don't have a visible profile up, since normally they seem to be here more for trolling or simply writing inflammatory comments instead of actual productive discourse, but since you seem to have a reasoned argument, I figure I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....

I'm going to focus my reply to Gore's statements about how the war should be waged at this current juncture compared to his statements in 1992 instead of going into an in depth analysis of how his statements in '92, and those of other Clinton Administration officials in the period leading up to the Iraq part of the War on Terror ,provided strong justification for the policy of regime change when it comes to Saddam Husein and Iraq.

I agree with you that there is a big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Sadam had 10 more years with which to foster his terrorist ties, to allow Al Qaeda to move freely throughout his borders and to work on potential weapons of mass destruction programs. There were 10 years, 8 of which had Al Gore in power, in which America stood idle as the terror threat amassed around the world and Saddam projected his capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction (whether full of false bravado or not). There is no possibility of Saddam Husein harboring terrorists in Iraq, providing training grounds for them, or providing them with weapons of mass destruction, at this time and that is to some degree due to our actions against him. As for your arguments of international allies and how a war would impact our moral authority in the world, unfortunately, we live in an era where America is the "last, best hope" of free people the world wide. Though I am not as Wilsonian as the current President Bush in my philosophy of spreading democracy, removing Saddam from power helped make America, and the world as a whole, a safer place, if only for the reason that it took a safe zone for terrorists to train and made it an area where they were forced to actively engage us (if you can use the term "engage" for people who's primary methods of engagement are to set road side bombs, kidnap civilians and destroy holy sites.) The whole twist that "we went there for WMDs and there were none so we should leave" or the "Bush said Saddam had ties to 9-11" are straw man arguments that have no real impact on the fact that it is in America's best interest to help the Iraqi people fight against the Al Qaeda terrorists who are trying to break down the Iraq's fledgling democracy before it has a chance to succeed, while Iran stands on the sidelines and routes for a new area they can spread their brand of Islamo-Fascism.

For Gore to say he was against the Iraq War from the start might be factually accurate, however, it would be hugely misleading for someone who was part of an administration that repeatedly stated the threat of Saddam Hussein to America and the greater world, especially given this video footage, to say he's always been against military intervention in Iraq. Ultimately, though people who are fans of Al Gore can find ways to explain how his statements in '92 do not contradict his statements currently, the American people as a whole will view his current view as largely hypocritical and an ad campaign that prominently featured excerpts from this footage would be hugely damning to Gore in the popular election.