Joe Lieberman was on FOX News Sunday today, talking about how Bush "overstated" the case for war, a war that Lieberman supported, a war that the U.S. Congress voted to give Bush the authority to execute.

And the Dems are still sniping at how Bush duped them and the American public by leading them into an unjustified war.

I'll tell you something, I don't care what Bush's case for war was. Justification enough for me was the U.N.'s case for war. It's often a mistake to boil down complex issues into simpler explanations, but the case for war simply boils down to this:

There was reason to believe that Iraq had illegal WMD, and the international community, via the U.N., repeatedly condemned their non-cooperation and non-compliance. They dragged their feet one time too many.

That's it. In terms of justification, I don't care about Niger or Yellowcake or meetings in Czechoslovakia. We didn't know the extent of Iraq's weapons programs, because they wouldn't cooperate.

Here's a summation of U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq over the past 12 years.

Here are just a few, after the original cease-fire agreement:

• 707 (15 August 1991):
  Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry.
  
• 778 (2 October 1992):
  Deplores Iraq's refusal to implement SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.
  
• 949 (15 October 1994):
  "Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom.
  
• 1060 (12 June 1996):
  On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.
  
• 1115 (21 June 1997):
  "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom.
  
• 1134 (23 October 1997):
  Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors.
  
• 1194 (9 September 1998):
  "Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.
  
• 1205 (5 November 1998):
  Echoes SCR 1194, demands that the Iraqi government "provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with inspectors and alludes to the threat to "international peace and security" posed by the non-cooperation.
  

Heck, that's enough. It is still incredible to me that many people continued to argue before the war that diplomacy had not been exhausted, that we needed to keep trying to solve this diplomatically, that we needed to give Iraq just one more chance to comply.

Now honestly, if a historian from the 22nd century were writing a book about the Iraq war, could he/she not honestly say that diplomacy had been exhausted? That it was patently obvious to all that the only way Iraq was going to comply with international mandates was by force?

So basically, I don't much care what case Bush made or didn't make. The case was made, much more loudly and clearly, by the U.N. itself.