Consider this situation:

Imagine Al Gore had won the Presidency (and actually got to be President). 9-11 happens. We attack Afghanistan, crush the Taliban. Intelligence reports show that Saddam may have access to WMDs. Al Gore, not convinced of WMDs, still feels Saddam needs to be dealt with. Instead of talking about WMDs, he makes the case that a free Iraq will help lead to a Democratic Middle East, and thus reduce the support for terror. Assume you know in advance that the Iraqi and Afghan elections will be successful (you can see the future or something like that).

No lies about WMDs. We get the French and the Germans to support us, and the U.N approves the operation. What do you do?

This is not a flamebait, although I know it's coming...

Bringing democracy vis a vis war is no way to facilitate democracy. "Freedom" has no merit when you are dead, or you have lost family and friends due to murder by occupying troops. Tajikistan has a far worse dictator that Hussein but remains an ally, Pakistan is spreading nuclear technology, supports the Chinese in holding on to Taiwan and won't let US troops in to find Bin Laden and remains a 'friend' - despite being a 'dictatorship'. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are all dictatorships

Democracy must first be claimed by the people of those nations, before a foreign power can come in and install democratic principles.

The people of Iraq have to want democracy so bad that they themselves are willing to fight for it, and if need be, die for it.

I would wish them well, but unless Saddam Hussein represents a clear and present threat to the US, removing him becomes the responsibility of the people of that country.

I would love to see the day when the people of China could live in a free democratic nation, but the people of that country have to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring about a democracy and keep it, just like our forefathers did.

have been unjustified. While the Bush administration didn't use "liberation" as its sole argument, it did throw it out there (not because it sincerely meant it but to impose the PNAC vision and for oil and gas interests).

The administration lied about the motive using WMDs as the main reason, but it's simply not justified (IMO, other than in the cases of preventing or stopping an imminent or ongoing genocide) to invade a nation and force your political system and will upon them.

If we are to invade every nation that faces a repressive dictator we would have a long never ending job. Saddam wasn't even the most repressive dictator at the time he was removed. As terrible as he was, there were worse ones like Kim Jong Il and arguably the Saudi Royals, and leaders of many African nations. There were a host of nations that were a bigger national security threat as well like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Nations just months ago and possibly at the moment are suffering from ongoing genocide - Sudan and the Congo come to mind. Yet we ignore these places, because the victims are black and the region offers little interest to politicians and few valuable resources such as gas. You get the point I'm trying to make.

... of our allies in this, for the very same reason that Bush did not. It would have been an illegal war--international law is very specific--war for the purposes of regime change is against law we've sworn to uphold.

Iraq did not nor has/had the capability of attacking us.

That's fundamental.

regardless of party affiliation.

...who was in power, but it completely ignores the role that BushCo played in the events leading up to and following 9-11. It also assumes that the office of the president is the ultimate power in the country. The invasion of Iraq would have taken place regardless of who was president, because the real power base in the country wanted control of Middle East oil. If Gore had won (was not going to happen, but if it had) the power base would have made sure that Gore went along, or he would have been dead!

under those circumstances. He would have been raked over the coals for even trying, and rightly so IMO.

This seems like a little bit of a push poll, but I'm not biting. Sorry.

Say what you want about Al but at least has the decency to do the jobs he's elected to.

Oh, and he has a pulse.