We risk bad policy when all choices before us are bad ones. For instance, the Kyoto protocol on climate change has its supporters and opponents, but very few are willing to admit that debate over its implementation has considerably more symbolic value than practical effect. The debate over the war on Iraq may have been similarly misguided as better policy options may have been ignored. In both cases, a commitment to pre-emption enables the politicization of intelligence, which then serves as a constraint on options that may be more effective but, for certain ideologues, politically less desirable re-emption hurts the policy process when it results in a dearth of choice.