If we claimed Saddam was harboring Al Qaida the UN would proceed to investigate. Propose inspectors... etc. Saddam would stall and deny that any Al Quaida (that he knew about) were hiding in Iraq. The UN and most of Congress would demand we prove the al Qaida were in Iraq or wait on inspectors reports. Bush would have to reveal our sources.
Bush would be forced to reveal who informed us the Al Qaida were hiding in Iraq and the proof they offered the Bush administration. If Bush didn't the Democrats in Congress would say it was made it up by Bush to win the November elections for the Republicans. When we offered proof Saddam would have a very good idea of who the informants were.
He would pick up all possible informants and kill them. Then he would hide the Al Quaida even deeper in Iraq and claim they were no longer there. He would claim no one could prove the terrorists had ever been in Iraq. While showing the world the Al Qaida were not where we said they were, Saddam would claim our so called informants do not even exist. Which by that time, they would not. Bush would have a hard time getting informants whose last name was not FARAH. That assumes the inabliity to think of consequences runs in the FARAH family.
It should be apparent that Bush has to use reasons that won't cause the Al Quaida, Saddam, the UN, the Media and the Democrats to know our intellegence sources. Bush has to use reasons that are self evident and not subject to Bush's word against Saddams. The media, the democrats and the UN will always believe Saddam. Al Quaida are not walking around Iraq with wearing signs.
Just a couple of weeks ago Saddam had Abu Nedall killed in Bagdad so we could not use him as an excuse.
Farah must think that a guy who can hide huge Scudd missiles couldn't hide some al Qaida so we could not prove they were hiding in Iraq without compromising our sources and getting them killed.
...That logic, sir, is demented...