If it was not clear enough before, then it was quite clear after Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the United Nations yesterday that Saddam Hussein continues to defy a decade of U.N. demands that he come clean about his weapons programs and disarm. The new evidence of illegal Iraqi weapons, and of illegal Iraqi evasions of weapons inspectors, was substantial and impressive, as was the implacable logic of Powell's presentation. There can be no doubt now that Saddam's regime is in "material breach" of U.N. Resolution 1441, which offered a "final opportunity" for Iraqi compliance before force would be used to disarm the country. But the most important thing about Powell's report was his direct appeal to the most important multilateral organization and the most authoritative instrument of international law to do its job and save its own credibility by doing so.

In effect, Powell made the case for multilateral action that the President did not really make in his State of the Union Address. Whereas the President spoke of the United States as a country focused solely on its own interests, and free to act regardless of the "actions of others," Powell represented the United States in its traditional role as the leader of the world community and the enforcer of international law.

This frank call for U.N. action in pursuit of collective security left the stubborn Security Council opponents gasping like gaffed fish to rationalize further temporizing about Iraq. For at least one day, the small group of nations opposing action to enforce more than a decade of U.N. resolutions demanding Iraq's disarmament could no longer hide behind concerns about U.S. unilateralism or Bush Administration "preemption" doctrines. For at least one day, the Bush Administration did nothing to distract from the clarity of the case for decisive action, and the French and Germans looked more isolated than ever in their desperate efforts to avoid military action, even if it means letting Saddam win yet another round in his twelve-year duel with the world.

It remains to be seen if anything will change after Powell's presentation, and what the Security Council will do to respond to the last report -- or the next report -- of U.N. inspectors documenting the continued pattern of Iraqi non-cooperation. Having passed Resolution 1441, it will be and should be difficult for the Council to find a way around the resort to force that is inevitably if regrettably the final weapon in any civilized community's strategy for peace and order. Only Saddam himself can prevent that now, and this appears unlikely.

But here in the United States, it's clear Powell made not only the factual case, but also the legal and moral case, that many Democratic critics of the Administration's Iraq policy have long called for.

And that's reflected in the reactions of many leading Democrats, including those who seek to convince the American people to send the President back to Crawford in 2004.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) said: "It is time for the world to restate its resolve. It is time for the United Nations to prove that its resolutions are worth more than the paper they are printed on. And it is time for Congress to stand firmly behind our own resolutions on Iraq."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said: "I am gratified the Administration finally came to the United Nations and made its case to the world.... With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now incumbent on the U.N. to respect its own mandates, and stand up for our common goal of either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or moving forward with the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition."

And Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) said: "I have long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq's behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind. Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act. Saddam Hussein is on notice."

Unfortunately, some Democrats are echoing the faulty logic of the French, who say Powell's presentation just shows the need for more inspections of Iraq. What would be the purpose of those inspections now that continued Iraqi defiance of its "final opportunity" for compliance with the United Nations has been established by the inspectors themselves? Does anyone actually think inspectors can disarm a totalitarian police state? No, all further inspections can do is to offer still more time for one side or another to "blink," reinforcing Saddam's desperate gamble that he can once again bluff his way out of the consequences of his own actions.

Others will argue that Iraq does not sufficiently threaten the United States to justify war, or that U.S. resources should be focused elsewhere, on Al Qaeda or on domestic challenges. But from this point on, the anti-war camp should also address the question finally raised by the Bush Administration: Is the future of collective security in general, or the United Nations in particular, worth fighting for? And is the cause of international law, civility, human rights and nonproliferation worth defending against a megalomaniacal tyrant whose capacity for evil is one of the best-documented phenomena on earth?

As Democratic internationalists, we think the answer to both questions is "yes," and hope the call for U.N. action will be answered.