Shock Docrtine postulates that a singular or short term, traumatic event causes a collective reaction of the populate to allow dramatic change in policy. I just don't see that with greenhouse emissions or social security. Both are gradual issues that most don't even think about everyday, generally. It's like not noticing somebody you see everyday needs a haircut until they actually get one.
With Iraq, I do think it was unusual how it only went down after 911, of which Saddam had nothing to do with. The nebulus "War on Terror" provided a blanket to sell his case. If Bush was competent in the least he could have sold the case to go in Iraq for the aforementioned reasons you cited above. And who knows, maybe he would have eventually without 911. But using 911 as a cover to push his Iraq agenda through was was wrong.
I don't necessarily think Iraq was a mistake. Saddam needed to be dealt with, that is a fact. But I am certainly opposed to how 911 was used to formulate this policy. I also don't agree that there was wholesale agreement on the WMD issue. Bob Woodward and Ron Suskinds books details very clearly the attrition that went on in the intelligence community by the Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney to get the intel they needed. This administration has classified and de-classified more documents than any other administration in history. Where there is smoke, fire usually follows, and one has to wonder how much of this was done for political purposes and how much was done for legitimate security reasons.
