This commentary by New Republic senior editor Lawrence Kaplan is right on the mark.

To any rational observer, the communications intercepts and satellite imagery Powell presented today should offer sufficient proof that Iraq is not cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. But, of course, we already knew this. And so did the other members of the Security Council. The problem with Powell's presentation, and with the entire logic behind it, is that they just don't care.

Powell could have parked an Iraqi Scud missile on East 42nd Street and still France, Russia, and Germany would have testified to Saddam's good intentions.

True. Likewise, many anti-war protestors here in America will play dumb, or worse, make excuses for Saddam Hussein. Not because they are objectively assessing the rational or right course of action for America and the world, but primarily because of a blind contempt for George Bush.

None of this should come as a surprise. According to former chief weapons inspector Richard Butler, when U.N. inspectors presented the Security Council with proof of Iraqi obstruction in 1998--including photos of Republican Guard trucks carrying away evidence--"French Ambassador Alain Dejammet speculated that perhaps a truckers' picnic was taking place." During the current flare-up over Iraq, French Foreign Minister Villepin has insisted that Saddam was cooperating nicely--this even before Hans Blix more or less testified to Iraq's compliance. Needless to say, the French and Germans still cling to this position.

Kaplan doesn't say it, but essentially Powell's presentation wasn't intended for France and Germany. No amount of evidence will budge them, it seems. Instead, Powell's words were directly to the rest of the world: our remaining European allies, the Middle East, and of course, home.

Finally, I don't agree with Kaplan's assessment that we never should have given inspections another chance. I think we had to. But I do agree with his ultimate conclusion:

But whether standing by impassively during the mass slaughters in Bosnia and Rwanda, or now tolerating Saddam's flouting of its own resolutions, the United Nations has emerged as considerably less than the sum of its parts. The Bush team should have never gone down the inspections route in the first place. But if the Security Council continues to turn a blind eye to Saddam's misdeeds, the United States will have every reason to walk away from the process--and the organization behind it.