al gore supported the first gulf war, the sanctions regime and the invasion of iraq. people under 40 will think of al gore as an environmentalist; people older than that will remember that he was a war hawk, and in fact the architect of much of the groundwork that allowed for the 2003 invasion in the first place. i've consequently repeatedly made the argument that those arguing that gore wouldn't have invaded iraq are probably wrong - and even that he would have seemed to be more likely to do it than bush, standing in the year 2000. bush campaigned against what he called "nation building", and you had to actually listen really closely to hear the burgeoning neo-con in there, which didn't really come out until after 9/11. but, gore was coming out of an administration that purposefully starved children as an economic sanction, and had personally supported military action against iraq since the 80s. and, i mean, look at how hillary clinton took out ghaddafi as soon as she got the chance. nader's argument the whole time was that it didn't really matter which one won, and i think he was actually probably right.