The Bush administration’s initial assertion of a clear link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has now been reduced to his association with “al-Qaida-type organizations,” but the U.S. policy of invading Iraq to thwart terrorism remains unchanged. Last week, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the United Nations that a key piece of evidence supposedly revealing Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program was forged. Like the link to terrorism, this charge demands more of a response from the United States than mere rhetorical hedging.

This is important because while it is true that the potential Security Council vote this week is a referendum on the effectiveness of the United Nations, it is also an international referendum on the presidency of George Bush and the trust the world currently is willing to place in the United States.

No one doubts that the Middle East would be safer if Saddam Hussein were out of power; few doubt the Iraqi people would see greater freedom and opportunity if he were gone. The case for removing him can be made powerfully – that Saddam is a murderous tyrant is not in question. But whether President Bush is the right person to force him out very much is in question, and the administration’s habit of stretching information to fit its argument for war is a primary reason for this.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said the documents offered by the United States as proof that Iraq was shopping for uranium in the African nation of Niger were “not authentic,” according to a recent story in The Washington Post. Some of the errors made on the documents that gave them away included names and titles that did not match the actual individuals who held those offices at the time the documents were said to have been written. The Post quoted one U.S. official who had reviewed the documents as saying, “We fell for it.”

And for months, experts have been refuting the administration’s claim that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use for uranium enrichment; scientists familiar with the tubes, including U.S. scientists, have said the tubes were unsuitable for that purpose but were instead to be used as parts for conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had said. Though Iraq is prohibited from importing the tubes for any reason, the administration, by overstating the case, placed some members of the Security Council on the side of Iraq on this point.

Russia has already said it would veto the March 17 deadline for complete disarmament if it came before a vote of the Security Council. The effect of that announcement may be seen today or later this week. But it is already apparent – see Turkey, Mexico – that nations normally amenable to letting the United States exert itself internationally are not willing to risk a hands-off policy this time. This is a damaging breach that the administration should take seriously and work hard to close. The future of a success fight against terrorism depends on it.