"If Elliot had gone to an Iraqi town square during Saddam's rule and denounced Islamic fundamentalism, he might very well have been applauded. Worst case he might have been deported.

Today he would most likely be shot before opening his mouth. Is this an example of "liberation transition"?"

Let us suppose this were true (it probably isn't, but lets say it is). Is this evidence that Iraq as run by Saddam was more liberal, or would it simply be evidence that the offenses that would get you shot in Iraq have changed since the invasion?

Do you suppose that shouting "Saddam is an oppressive dictator" in the pre-invasion Iraqi town square would have been a safe thing to do? People were reputedly dragged from their beds and tortured to death for much less.

It's also important to consider who would be doing the shooting. In the pre-invasion Iraq you would be shot by the republican guard - in the new Iraq you would be shot by a criminal. Granted you're just as dead either way, but at least in the latter case there's a slim chance that the culprit may be prosecuted for their crime, instead of getting a promotion.

I think in the end it is better to live in a free country with a legitimate government that isn't coping well with terrorism, rather than an oppressive regime where even the terrorists are too afraid to step out of line.