The Pro-War Anti-War: Curiouser and Curiouser

I really think we're on to something quite interesting here. In my Guardian article last week, I drew attention to the fact that pro-war bloggers such as Stephen Pollard and Harry's Place were involved in an internet campaign to grant asylum to 91 Iraqi interpreters. 'So what' shrieked the 'Let's Run Neil Clark Out of Town' Harry's Place instigated Lynch Mob: this is a campaign organised and dominated by good, 'antiwar' blogs - so what if a few warmongers are involved too?'. But, as regular commenter Arabella questioned on Saturday, just how 'anti-war' is this campaign's credentials?

I have already highlighted on my last post the fact that the campaign's organiser, Dan Hardie, approached two notoriously pro-war websites asking for support, and commented on his rather interesting blog roll, on which prominent anti-war sites were conspicuous by their absence. More on Hardie later, but here's a bit of background on fellow campaign organiser, the stockbroker and blogger Daniel Davies. It seems Daniel's commitment to the anti-war cause is as strong as Dan's.

Here's what Daniel was writing in 2002 re Iraq:

"I retain my original belief that improvement in Iraq is politically impossible unless there is some sort of shooting war in the area culminating in the removal of Saddam Hussein. I don't set much score by "national-building", and don't really believe that what the Gulf needs is more US client states, and I never believed any of the scare stories related to the "WMD" acronym which is currently doing such sterling duty in picking out weblog authors who don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. I just think that Saddam needs to go, because it's just one of those Damned Things which Has To Happen. I'm a fatalist, not a moralist.

So, how can we square these beliefs a) that something has to be done and b) that if something is done, it will be a disastrous imperial adventure by George Bush. Here's how, and it's so simple it's beautiful:

The official policy of D-Squared Digest with respect to Iraq is now that we support a policy of containment until after the 2004 Presidential elections, and after that, we will support immediate war with Iraq if and only if someone other than George W Bush is elected."

And in the month that war did break out, March 2003, Daniel was a "troubled" man. But "troubled" not over the lanching of an illegal war and the fate of Iraqis facing 'Shock and Awe'.
Here's what he wrote:

"On a similar note, I have been troubled greatly over the last few days by the following thought; although it is obvious that the USA has an incredible advantage over Iraq in terms of men and materiel, you have to admit that if you were picking a team of leaders to lose this war, you wouldn't be able to do much better than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ignorance - check; Hubris - check; Ability to alienate allies - check; Tendency to ignore unfavourable information - check. It's like having Saddam Hussein's fucking fantasy football team in the top job. "

Daniel was "troubled greatly" by the fact that the US might lose the Iraq War.

Nuff said.