Secretary of State Colin Powell made an impassioned and convincing speech last February making the case to go to war with Iraq. That speech, in which he presented evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use weapons of mass destruction, was a turning point for congressional and public support for the war effort.

Now, it appears the Pentagon’s own intelligence agency had no concrete evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall.

These claims clash and the confusion has prompted talk of House and Senate hearings and very possibly a congressional investigation.

Sen. Pat Roberts, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked for calm, suggesting the headlong rush into months-long congressional hearings might be premature. Roberts, who would chair the committee responsible for conducting the meetings, wants to read Central Intelligence Agency documents before committing to a congressional review.

The case for war was made in the public eye, during prime time and in the morning editions.

Why not defend that case in the same way?

The Bush administration can reveal information it used to conclude Iraq was making and stashing weapons of mass destruction, sharing with voters what has already been shared with members of Congress. That information was held secret for reasons of national security pre-war, but the justification for secrecy is now less and national credibility is at stake.

The Pentagon announced last week that, although it lacked clear evidence, it certainly believes Iraq had a chemical weapons program in place and was moving ahead with production.

France, Germany and Russia share that view, joining general global acknowledgment that the technology and know-how to build weapons of mass destruction are abundant and there are terrorists in and out of Iraq willing to employ mass murder techniques.

The growing question is how imminent a threat these weapons posed and/or pose and if the United States was justified in moving as quickly as it did against Saddam.

That’s a pretty simple question, and one the Bush administration can answer without the expense and drama of congressional hearings.

Last fall, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld each said unequivocally that there was no doubt Saddam was amassing weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.

Secretary Powell, in making his case for war, rolled out satellite photographs and taped phone conversations that he said clearly demonstrated Iraq’s purposeful noncompliance with the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.

In early February, Saddam was reported to have authorized troops to use chemical weapons in the event the United States launched an attack, creating a sense the threat of WMD was real and present.

The public, which supported the war, is now asking legitimate and pressing questions about its justification. The best and most direct way to put criticism to rest is for the Bush administration to present its evidence quickly, clearly and credibly.


[email protected]