First of all, our liberation force was legal.

Certainly not; no authorization from the UN, no threat nor provication from Iraq.

Second, don’t you have any vision of the future, or are you stuck in only this moment

It's indeed freedom in Iraq: freedom to criticize, to attack, to kidnap, to terrorize as the country isn't organized, is without law and order; it's called chaos.

Our forces are trying to bring peace, freedom and democracy to a trouble region. Once that is done, we are out of there.

With guns and tanks. Peace, real freedom and real democracy mean an appeased society. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites getting along, having forgotten their rivalries under Saddam or under the occupation.
A democracy means an acceptance by all of the same kind of society where minorities are accepted and respected. Where every so often elections can change the power. None of the surrounding countries, even not at war, are democracies and here, Iraq is being threatened by an occupying foreign army.
The BIG problem is that Bush can't promise a withdrawal at a specific moment, leading to whatever interpretation one wishes.

You still will not admit it is a good thing we got rid of Saddam.

That's really a problem: has Bush thought of what happens after Saddam is gone? Did Bush have a plan for the Iraqis, after the war? It's indecent pretending that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing for Iraqis while obviously the invader became overwhelmed by concerns for their safety.
If Saddam had been left alone, what he would have done to his people was none of our business (sovereign state principle); now that the US got involved, the safety of the Iraqis became your business. How many have died since it became your country's business?
It's called responsability.

Raoul