Convincing case?

Convincing case?

The United States has consistently said that it had absolute proof that Iraq
was making weapons of mass destruction, but until now it's refused to reveal
much of that information because it said it didn't want to compromise its
sources.

But now that we have a fuller picture, do the US allegations stand up to
scrutiny?

Our Science Reporter, Julian Rush, has been examining the evidence:

Compared with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis - when the photographic evidence
WAS stark and damning - the so-called Adlai Stevenson moment - Mr Powell's
surveillance pictures did not have the same impact.

He used them to try to prove a pattern: that, taken with other evidence,
Iraq has been actively deceiving the UN's inspectors. But every picture can
tell several different stories.

Experts we talked to say that one could not rule out Powell was right, but
doubt that those conclusions could be drawn from photos alone - they would
need to be corroborated by eye-witness accounts to be certain.

The US risked much by releasing the tapes: they reveal just how effective
their electronic eavesdropping is.

America's intelligence agencies were bitterly divided over what to release:
the CIA opposed to what they saw as gung-ho Pentagon hawks who jumped to
conclusions based on the flimsiest evidence.

The forthright way Colin Powell alleged a complex web to claim Iraq was
linked to al-Qaeda exposes deep and embarrassing confusions between the main
allies, Britain and America.

Mr Powell says today there is a link, a leaked British security service
document and Mr Blair both say today, there's, well, speculation.

Analysts say much of what was presented today was, in fact, old and widely
known.

What was new is open to interpretation.

It seems America's intention was to make a case based on quantity rather
than quality of evidence: a case where the whole is more than the sum of the
parts.

http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030205/powell.html