Nah... I would guess that it irritates liberals more that Reagan sold Saddam the chemical weapons that put many of those bodies in the ground.
Actually, liberals believed there were no chemical weapons.
Seems many forget the context of going into Iraq. Remember, Saddam was one of our allies for many years. We gave him sarin gas to allow him to hold Iran at bay. It worked, as Iran was too scared to start an offensive against Iraq for fear of being gassed. Saddam later decided to move on another one of our allies, Kuwait, and we defended them under threat of being gassed as well. When Iraq surrendered and agreed to ceasefire, they also agreed to destroy all the US sarin. However, Saddam knew that an admittance of being without sarin would unleash Iran on them. So, he kicked out UN inspectors to keeps the status of the remaining sarin unknown. The US dropped the ball on forcing compliance because basically they didnt care and didnt want to feel obligated to protect Iraq, who they just disarmed, from Iran.
Bush Sr. avoided ousting Saddam and destroying the gas because of the cost\benefit.
Clinton avoided forcing complaince to ceasefire agreement and destroying the gas because of cost\benefit.
Would it had been cheaper to correct the sarin problem WE CREATED with minimal effort in 1990's dollars than what we have spent in Iraq?
IMO sometimes you need to do what is right dispite the perceived cost benefit because that cost can be expotntially heavier down the road.