I don\'t see how you can call that evidence VERY STRONG.
1. "intercepted communications about moving stuff" - WHAT STUFF? A modified vehicle of some kind. So, because they were talking about moving it, that must mean that it\'s incriminating? That\'s not proof.
2. "video footage of an Iraqi Mig simulating spreading anthrax" - I haven\'t seen it, but it\'s hard for me to imagine that this could be incriminating in any way.
3. "photographs of chemical bunkers and mobile labs." Photographs are always open to interpretation. This could be evidence for a photo technician who knows everything about Iraqi construction methods and the designs of chemical labs, but to the layman it\'s meaningless. Therefore it requres that we trust the photo interpreters to accept it as hard evidence. Maybe it is, but I think we need something more easily acceptable. Kennedy\'s photos of the russian missles on the deck of a ship were much more easily understandable than this stuff.
4. Powell said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has personally barred Iraqi scientists from participating in interviews with U.N. inspectors and forced them "to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information is punishable by death." Not strictly evidence of any wrongdoing.
5. Powell said Iraq has failed to account for its stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons, including four tons of the nerve gas VX. "We have evidence these weapons existed," Powell said. "What we don\'t have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are." Show the evidence that they existed, don\'t just refer to it.
6. "we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons." What proof? Show it.
Referring to proof isn\'t the same as showing proof.
