I guess that depends on your definition of the vague euphemism "liberated."

Yes, we did remove a secular tyrant from power, but did we just replace it with our armed forces and constant violence? Did we "free" the Iraqi people, or subject them to a violent invasion and even more violent occupation?

No matter what you believe is going on in Iraq right now, "liberation" has one true meaning that is hidden by the GW administration's talk of spreading freedom and democracy.

From A Dictionary of Euphemisms & Other Doubletalk by Hugh Rawson, 1981 edition:

liberate/liberation. To take what isn't yours, and the act thereof; ironically, to destroy something, usually a town.

The euphemistic noun seems to have come first, during World War II, when a patriotic editor of the Richmond News-Leader suggested that the Allies substitute "liberation" for "invasion." The idea was picked up by FDR. "At a press conference in May 1944, a month before D-day, President Roosevelet said that when our expected invasion of Europe began we would be using the word 'liberation - not invasion'" (Stuart Berg Flexner, I Hear America Talking, 1976). Thus, with the best of intentions, the word was liberated from its traditional moorings. Soon, soldiers in the armies of liberation began to speak of liberating chickens, bottles of wine, watches, and parctically everything else that wasn't nailed permanently in place. In this way, "liberate" became World War II's counterpart of World War I's SALVAGE and the Civil War's APPROPRIATE. In the ironic sense, cities sometimes were liberated so thoroughly as to be hardly recognizable, e.g., "'This place sure has been liberated,' said an American M.P. . . . when eventually they reached the waste of brick and stone which had been Vire" (A. McKee, Caen, 1964).

The euphemism has withstood the test of time. Thus, in Israel, the territories that were taken from the Arabs during the Six-Day War of 1967 are never described by expansionists as "annexed," "occupied," or "administered," but as liberated, while in Cambodia, amid the confusion that attended the fall of Phnom Penh to Communist forces, Sydney H. Schanberg noted that "I even had time to 'liberate' a typewriter someone had abandoned, since the troops had 'liberated' mine earlier" (New York Times, 5/9/75). Mr. Schanberg also noted that the Communist troops called their mlitary units "rumdos," which translates as "liberation forces." (When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979, they also styled themselves as liberation forces.) In the United States, meanwhile, the crazies who murdered a black school superntendent and kidnapped Patty Hearst saw themsleves as the Symbionese Liberation Army. And so it goes.

(all emphasis, etc., from original)

In case you were wondering, I 100% agree we have "liberated" Iraq according to the above definition, and I bet they feel "liberated" as well. We took what did not belong to us, and destroyed several towns (i.e. Fallujah) in the process. Fits the definition to a 'T.'