A clarification of terms: Unrealists

What shall I call those who are ideologically committed to the failure of democracy in Iraq?

The anti-warriors? No, that won't do. They managed to hold their "peace" (ironically) while Clinton bombed the bejeezus out Saddam, Kosovo, and a Sudan aspirin factory (not that I'm complaining about it...I just saying is all). Anti-democrats? Well, they will vociferously deny that. They're for democracy...if some politician they like is doing it, or if it is done in some dream-world way (like Saddam and his sons deciding not to commit wholesale genocide to root out reformers), or if the new democracy is led by an American-hating Marxist...well, in those cases, they are for democracy, and they will tell you so every time.

However their comparisons of President Dubya to Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler for biting the bullet and taking out Saddam at last and liberating Iraq from 12 years of sanctions (all the while ignoring the fact that Saddam was a freakish metamorphosis of Hitler and Stalin) is a kind of lifting of their collective leg to the absolutely necessary effort (made clear by 9-11) to bring freedom to a region that for too long has been oppressed by dictators. Maybe they ought to be represented by a picture of dog peeing on a fire hydrant with the words "Free Iraq". But once again, that's not fair (they'll say), because they would support a free Iraq if it could be accomplished via some impossible method where the US or Republicans or the Religious Right or Eugene McCarthy could be criticized for something.

Come think of it, it seems that a firm grasp on unreality is the one thing that holds these pseudo-peace-mongers together. So I'll hence forth call them "Unrealists". Add that to your glossary for future reading.