Dissecting The Case

(4 of 6)

It sounds persuasive, but Washington doesn't have a flawless track record on making such intelligence allegations stick. For example, last fall the CIA pointed to satellite snaps of construction under way at the al Tuwaitha complex near Baghdad as proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear-bomb plant. After 12 visits there sampling the soil, testing equipment and checking for radiation, the inspectors could detect no nuclear developments. At three other sites that the U.S. said were resuming production of chemical and biological agents, repeated inspections showed the plants were either inoperative or producing something other than microbes. The Administration says that just proves why inspections will never root out the weapons programs that Washington knows lie hidden.

Even with pictures and lists, Administration officials admit that most of their evidence is circumstantial. It's "suggestive, not damning," says a senior U.S. intelligence official. Much will depend on whether Powell's interpretations are compelling. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who has seen much of this material in intelligence-committee briefings he would not discuss, says what is made public will point the audience to logical conclusions, "such as why are they procuring these particular items if that's not what they're doing with them? Because that's what these particular items are designed for."

Saddam and al-Qaeda

This is the high-voltage line of argument that could blow away skeptics' doubts--or blow holes in Bush's entire case. Strong evidence of a link between Iraq and terrorists would make it easy for allies--and nervous American citizens--to support a war, but it's the hardest allegation to prove. Bush, who plainly believes it, gave the charge its sharpest articulation yet in his State of the Union address: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda." Bush's men have floated such a connection in the past without producing credible hard evidence, and some officials are worried that sketchy details on the terrorist connection could undermine the power of Powell's overall presentation. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage surprised Senators last week when he candidly acknowledged that in the past the Administration had relied on ambiguous intelligence to make its case. But, he added, this time it would be just the facts.

So what does the U.S. now know--or what is it willing to release? To convince skeptics that Saddam not only could but has formed an alliance with the same kind of terrorists who caused the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. officials are planning to disclose recent links between Baghdad and the murky band of Kurdish fundamentalists called Ansar al-Islam. They say the group, based in a corner of northern Iraq outside Baghdad's control, is an al-Qaeda operation, trained by al-Qaeda men in Afghanistan and harboring al-Qaeda refugees who fled the fighting there (see box).