The Iraq Liberation Act.

One of the Bush followers favorite ploys in deflecting responsibilty for the debacle in Iraq off President Bush is to bring up the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton, as though this somehow vindicates Bush's decision to unilaterally invade Iraq and excuse his subsequent incompetent prosecution of the war.

Putz does so today, and his link includes this telling passage:

Less than five years after the Iraq Liberation Act, President Bush followed through. Bush took action to liberate Iraq.

This is, what do you call it? Bullshit. The Iraq Liberation Act doesn't call for the United States military to unilaterally invade Iraq and occupy it. It doesn't, in fact, call for US military intervention of any kind. Here's what Sen. Bob Kerrey said about it.

"Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a portent new tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance America's interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East.

And Ambassador Joe Wilson emphasizes the same point.

Most people looked at it and said, "It won't have any great effect. It's going to be funded at $90 million a year." We know with what we're spending in Baghdad that $90 million doesn't buy you breakfast for a week in Baghdad for 135,000 troops! So it was not regime change by invasion, conquest, occupation; it was essentially a policy of regime change that would have employed some other methods: subversion, intelligence operations, propaganda.

The United States also has a stated policy of regime change in Cuba. Will President Bush "follow through" on that one, too?

Attention Bushbots: stop trying to deflect the blame for the disaster in Iraq on President Clinton, the media, the Arabs, the UN, Democrats, liberals, John Murtha, Wolf Blitzer, Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. It's all W's and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists'.

Man up and own it.