i don't think there was any question that we would have invaded afghanistan under any president.
the real question is, would forces have been pulled out of afghanistan and redirected to iraq?
the real answer is, no.
boobmobile (aka titcar).
Afghanistan had to happen. There are still very few people who don't support our action in Afghanistan; it's Iraq and everything resulting from it that's caused the huge rally against the Bush administration.
Some other important changes: no Alberto Gonzales, and no Alito or Roberts appointments to SCOTUS.
No argument that Afghanistan was the right move. But assuming that Gore would have done everything right is probably a stretch. His likely response to 9/11 would have been significant diplomatic pressure on the Taliban, followed with massive airstrikes, not unlike what we did in the Balkans in the late 90's.
I agree Iraq would have never happened, I agree that our energy policy would be in a much better place than it is right now, I think that we would also be seeing a federal gas tax and other pollution reduction measures in place by now; but I can't agree that a democratic president who was VP for three major terrorist attacks under Clinton would actually put significant amounts of American boots on the ground after 9/11.
Airstrikes and international pressure? Yes. Full-on invasion, overthrowing an entrenched government and nationbuilding? I don't think Gore has it in him. Maybe that's a good thing.
Other potential differences - No Terry Schiavo debacle. Gore/McCain or Gore/Giuliani election in 2004 (they were both *much* better positioned in '04 than they are now.
Most importantly from a national political perspective: Blame for 9/11 would fall squarely on democratic shoulders. After the initial WTC attacks, the Kohl, and the Embassy bombings, allowing 9/11 to happen would severely damage the democratic stance on mid-east policy.