Mr Bush and Mr Blair have still not produced the evidence to justify war

Tony Blair claims that he and George Bush have a "shared strategy" for dealing with Saddam Hussein. That is as may be: what they certainly have is a shared tactic for dealing with the growing reluctance of their respective publics to go to war. Both leaders have cleverly used words to suggest that the threat of a nuclear attack on their home populations is real and imminent.

Mr Blair yesterday managed to conjure a vision of an Iraqi nuclear missile heading toward Charing Cross while his actual words were only of "direct implications for the interests of Britain" if Saddam acquired nuclear capability. President Bush, meanwhile, claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency had said Saddam was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon, which it has not. The US Defence Department itself said last year that "Iraq would need five or more years" and substantial outside help to enrich enough uranium to make an atomic bomb.

While both leaders may have briefly obtained the headlines they wanted, the case for military action against Saddam is going to have to be more soundly based. Mr Blair should at least be given the credit for trying to rebuild the international coalition, and for apparently persuading the President to try to get the United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

The Independent recognises that the case for war could be made. We do not scurry for the easy protection of "it must be authorised by the UN". We recognise that the use of the veto on the Security Council can make it impossible for the UN to do many things it should. We supported the Kosovo war and we supported the bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, which was an (unsuccessful) attempt to force the readmission of weapons inspectors. Neither had explicit approval from the UN, even though in the second case it was the UN's own agents who had been prevented from carrying out their work.

If it were true that Saddam was on the point of acquiring nuclear weapons, the case for military action would be overwhelming. But there is no evidence that this is the case, and neither Mr Bush in his address to the UN on Thursday, nor Mr Blair in his "dossier", whenever he chooses to publish it, is likely to produce much more than we know already.

Of course, we do know already that Saddam has acquired chemical and biological weapons in the past and tried to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that the international community has a responsibility to try to restrain him. We know that the matter is urgent. Up to that point, there is wide international agreement. But to go straight from there to a land invasion is to cross several bridges too far.

On this point, former President Bill Clinton talks a great deal more sense than his successor, pointing out that an invasion gives Saddam maximum incentive to use any chemical and biological weapons he has "because he knows he's going to lose".

It is true that the UN has been too passive in the face of Saddam's defiance of its resolutions for the four years since the inspectors left in 1998. But Mr Bush's blundering war talk seems to have united most countries against him rather than against Saddam.

The President and Mr Blair tried to reclaim some of the moral high ground yesterday, Mr Blair talking sonorously of the "responsibility" of action. It was irresponsible, however, to try to frighten people into supporting a war which is not yet shown to be necessary and which could be so disastrous.