I have been reading your replies to "On terrorists", but I have been busy lately, and not in the mood to argue about it.
First, a final note on Maher Arar: if he was offered first to Canada, and they turned him down, the canadians should be to blame. We tried.
Shakrai gave a perfect example of why I don't give much weight to the arguments of flaming anti-Bushies. He ended one of his comments with, "God I fucking hate neo-cons and all that they stand for." I resent being called a "neo-con". Frankly, I think the term was invented to sound like "neo-nazi". I'm just a plain conservative. You could at least avoid saying you hate people because of what they think, if you want to appear to be a reasonable human being.
I reject the premise that the US is "occupying" Iraq. We already have a date (a close date!) for moving control to an Iraqi government. I also reject the premise that the majority of Iraqis want us out "now, now, do it now!".
I suggest you read the book "Legacy", which is about Bill Clinton's eight years in office. Part of this will address the issue that Shakrai raised, about getting terrorists with law enforcement. To very briefly summarize, anything baring any resemblence to "racial profiling" would not have been permitted.
Part of the reason liberals and moderates hate or are afraid of Bush is that after eight years of a guy who was afraid to do any military action of any consequence, we now have a president who is not afraid to defend us and attack our enemies. Furthermore, GWB is not afraid to do what he thinks is right, even if it is not good for him politically.
My opinion remains the same: there were a lot of bad things which shouldn't have happened, but I think it will be dealt with.