But the evidence that anything we were told to justify invading Iraq was true is looking worse and worse.
Point by Point, a Look Back at a 'thick' File, a Fateful Six Months Later The Most Detailed U.S. Case for Invading Iraq Was Laid - from Tampa Bay Online: "For 80 minutes in a hushed U.N. Security Council chamber in New York, the U.S. secretary of state unleashed an avalanche of allegations: The Iraqis were hiding chemical and biological weapons, were secretly working to make more banned arms, were reviving their nuclear bomb project. He spoke of 'the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world.'Good work here by the AP analyzing each of Powell's points. If only this had been done --and published-- a lot sooner.
It was the most comprehensive presentation of the U.S. case for war. Powell marshaled what were described as intercepted Iraqi conversations, reconnaissance photos of Iraqi sites, accounts of defectors, and other intelligence sources.
The defectors and other sources went unidentified. The audiotapes were uncorroborated, as were the photo interpretations. No other supporting documents were presented. Little was independently verifiable.
Powell's 'thick intelligence file,' as he called it, had won them over. Since 1998, he told fellow foreign ministers, 'we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons.'
But in Baghdad, when the satellite broadcast ended, presidential science adviser Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi appeared before the audience and dismissed the U.S. case as 'stunts' aimed at swaying the uninformed.
Some outside observers also sounded unimpressed. 'War can be avoided. Colin Powell came up with absolutely nothing,' said Denmark's Ulla Sandbaek, a visiting European Parliament member.
Six months after that Feb. 5 appearance, the file does look thin. "