[Bodah]

$1:

ST. JOHN'S -- The Liberals will force an early vote on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan this fall in a bid to set Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the defensive over the issue.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said his party will use its first opposition day in the fall session to put forward a motion for Canada to notify its allies that it will withdraw from Kandahar in February, 2009.

Although Mr. Harper has said Parliament will vote on whether to extend Canada's military mission past that date, he has not said when. The Liberals hope to force the Conservatives to take a stand as soon as next month.

"The Prime Minister is wasting time, shilly-shallying, and I know why - because he wants to stay longer than February, 2009," Mr. Dion told reporters after a meeting of his caucus in St. John's to plot the party's fall strategy.

Mr. Harper's government is widely expected to prorogue Parliament before its scheduled return in September and deliver a new Throne Speech in October. That has led to a new round of speculation about a possible election, because the speech must be followed by a confidence vote, and the Bloc Québécois has said it will vote against the government if it does not declare it will end the Afghan mission in 2009.

Mr. Dion has said his party will probably vote against the speech - the official opposition usually does - but that his motion on Afghanistan would not be a confidence matter unless Mr. Harper decides to stake his government on the vote.

But Mr. Dion added that if the government does not take a clear stand eventually, there "will come a time when indeed we are not able to keep this government alive."

Pounding the government on Afghanistan is part of the strategy that the caucus developed this week, and Mr. Dion is hoping to highlight the issue before three Quebec by-elections to be held on Sept. 17.

Mr. Dion closed the meeting with an aggressive partisan speech attacking Mr. Harper as a controlling, "one-man government" who does not allow his MPs to say or do anything, bars reporters from meetings, and will not come clean on issues like alleged election-spending accounting irregularities.

He also highlighted general areas, like the environment, the economy, poverty and infrastructure, where he said the Liberals will put forward proposals in the fall.

The speech, in a sense, reflects the Liberal plan for the fall: pound away at Mr. Harper and gradually start to roll out new initiatives to create a stronger identity with voters.

Inside the closed-door caucus meetings, party pollster Michael Marzolini offered advice on both to MPs yesterday, telling them they could win an election with simple, straightforward policies, and a fresh image, as well as by shaking confidence in Mr. Harper.

According to the accounts of caucus members, Mr. Marzolini told the Liberals that while Mr. Harper's approval ratings are relatively high, they are vulnerable because the public gives him only mixed ratings on whether they trust him and share his values, and many say they believe he is hiding his true intentions.

The Liberals meanwhile, have yet to create an impression in opposition: Mr. Marzolini told the MPs that voters have no nostalgia for past Liberal governments, and the party must rebrand itself as renewed and forward-looking. Many of those who will not vote Liberal cite the fact they know little about Mr. Dion as one reason.

However, Mr. Marzolini also told the Liberals that two of their key attack points, Afghanistan and the environment, are less effective because their stand is not clear.

MPs said Mr. Marzolini told them that Canada's role in Afghanistan has the potential to move voters, especially in Quebec, but the Liberal position is vague in the minds of most voters - who also see the Conservatives as being for the mission, and the NDP against.

He also said that Mr. Dion has more credibility with voters than Mr. Harper on the environment and climate change, but the issue has most resonance with younger Canadians, who are less likely to vote, and that the Liberals need a stronger message to move others.

"Marzolini is saying get that policy, keep it simple, make sure Canadians understand it, and this will take you a long way because Canadians don't believe Stephen Harper on the environment," deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said after the meeting.

Mr. Marzolini offered some advice on possible policy initiatives, MPs said. He said that middle-income tax cuts could be a vote-winner for the

Liberals, but the idea of raising the GST again to pay for it - which the Liberals toyed with in the spring - would be massively unpopular.

It wasn't good enough that we agreed to re-evaluate the mission in Feb 2009, it looks like Dion wants the government to inform NATO immediately that we will be pulling out Feb 2009, no matter whats going in Afghanistan or for that matter what may happen here.

I suspect the separatists, and Taliban Jack's minions will vote in support of the Liberal motion. I hope that Harper considers this a vote of confidence and is willing to disolve the house and force an election over the issue, So then we can finally gain a Conservative majority, unless of course Canada is ready for a Prime Minister from France or Taliban Jack.

[ridenrain]

Dion is making all this noise because he dosen't have much in the way of policy. He started off being green but that's falling appart, and that path is already thick with greens.
His Afghan policy is confused because half of the party still supports the mission and there are many feft-overs from when the mission started.

He makes all this noise and bluster and the media lap it up without question.

[Scape]

Dion is jumping the gun, Harper plays this right he could get his majority.

[karra]

Typical Liberal huffin' and puffin'. . . .

[ryan29]

the last thing we need is another vote on this mission haven't there allready been several . this will just give the taliban more reasons to kill our troops since they know there is going to be another vote on the mission .

[Scrappy]

Smack on target Ryan. I use to respect Dion, but now he's shown what he's really about. Another slathering, blathering off at the mouth politician who'll do anything to get elected. Our troops clearly are nothing but a pawn for him to gain inroads in Quebec and across Canada. I'm surprised thou that Liberals who don't support his lack of platform aren't jumping ship. I can't say I'm surprised though, he's spent so much time in France he's hard core socialist/communist to the core, or so it appears.

[bootlegga]

karra karra:

Typical Liberal huffin' and puffin'. . . .

No different from Harper in 2005, when he threatened Martin's government at every turn...

[Bodah]

ryan29 ryan29:

the last thing we need is another vote on this mission haven't there allready been several . this will just give the taliban more reasons to kill our troops since they know there is going to be another vote on the mission .

It looks like there will be another vote, I'm not too sure how liberal MP's are going to vote but I'm pretty sure the Separatists and the NDP would likely vote in favor. If it goes through that means that Harper was bullied by the opposition once again over an issue that already be voted upon.

It will be Harper who has to go to NATO and inform them were pulling out, it will be Harper the world will look at when the find out how spineless we are. It will be Harper that will have to tell the troops thanks for your hard work, thanks for your fallen comrades but were done.

I really don't think he'd want to do this, that's why I hope he turns this into a confidence vote and disolves parliment and force an election over it if he has too, let Dion or Taliban jack do all of what I mentioned above I say. I agree though Dion is turning this into a poker game and disgustingly the soldiers are the poker chips, time to call his bluff.

If the election has to be about Afghanistan so be it. Harper does have to do more with public addresses to the Nation regarding our progress, there are good news stories and progress happening over there but all the media is interested in is dead Canadians. If he doesn't inform them then alot of people would be relying on CBC 10 second sound bites to make their political decisions for them and we all know where they stand.

[Winnipegger]

The opposition has to huff and puff, just as Stephen Harper did to Paul Martin. As for a real platform, why would he release it before the election is called? That would be bad tactics. Many here are military, you understand tactics.

I believe it is ethically wrong to target the Taliban. Not that the Taliban are good, by Canadian standards they treat Afghani people pretty badly, but we can't dictate the internal policies of another country. A non-Afghani military doing so will only create more support for the Taliban with locals. Actually, I talked to Stéphane Dion about this in June 2006, the evening before the first leadership debate. Only Michael Ignatieff and Scott Bryson spoke in favour of the Afghan mission. But Stéphane believes the Taliban must be suppressed. When he spoke to Young Liberals at the leadership convention, one of them asked about Afghanistan. He noticed I wasn't wearing my translation receiver (looked straight at me), so answered in French before I could put the ear peaces in. He didn't realize I know enough French to understand what he said. He wants to close off the Afghanistan/Pakistan border so Taliban can't duck back and forth through the mountains; that the military will never get anywhere as long as they can do that. Hmm! And I want to get Pakistan's permission to send a force into the tribal areas of Pakistan to clean out al-Qaeda. Leave the Taliban alone, they haven't attacked Canada or our allies so they aren't a target. Stéphane agrees more with you than I do, so don't attack him. His compromise is to say we will continue to the end of the Afghan extension then our military involvement will end. We will continue humanitarian aid, but no military involvement. A fair compromise, I can live with that. So don't attack Stéphane, if you want to attack someone attack me.

[ryan29]

Scrappy Scrappy:

Smack on target Ryan. I use to respect Dion, but now he's shown what he's really about. Another slathering, blathering off at the mouth politician who'll do anything to get elected. Our troops clearly are nothing but a pawn for him to gain inroads in Quebec and across Canada. I'm surprised thou that Liberals who don't support his lack of platform aren't jumping ship. I can't say I'm surprised though, he's spent so much time in France he's hard core socialist/communist to the core, or so it appears.

the liberals clearly are not concerned about the troops in afghanistan currently otherwise they would stop all this nonesense and let the soliders do there job.

this future vote will only provide many more reasons for the taliban to target canadian soliders from quebec and some will pay the ultimate price because of this .
as far as i'm concerned dion is directly responsible for any future casualties in afghanistan .

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I believe it is ethically wrong to target the Taliban. Not that the Taliban are good, by Canadian standards they treat Afghani people pretty badly, but we can't dictate the internal policies of another country.

So in your view the missions to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia for instance were also wrong? Just like any mission to Sudan would also be wrong right?

$1:

And I want to get Pakistan's permission to send a force into the tribal areas of Pakistan to clean out al-Qaeda.

You will never get that permission.

$1:

Leave the Taliban alone, they haven't attacked Canada or our allies so they aren't a target.

No they didn't attack us, they just heavily backed a terrorist group that launched an attack on one of our NATO allies and then when given the chance to capitulate by turning over the monster that planned it all they refused. The Taliban are our enemies, and our enemies should be suppressed or destroyed.

$1:

We will continue humanitarian aid, but no military involvement. A fair compromise, I can live with that. So don't attack Stéphane, if you want to attack someone attack me.

That aid will be next to useless without military protection to keep the bloody insurgents at bay, why does no one understand this?

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So in your view the missions to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia for instance were also wrong? Just like any mission to Sudan would also be wrong right?

Darfur; now there's a sticky mess. I tried to use that with Martha Hall Findley as a reason we should get our troops out of Afghanistan. If everything is committed to Afghanistan, we can't go to other places like Darfur. Any intervention in Darfur must be a UN mission, sanctioned by the Security Council. Their decision so far is to let African countries intervene in Darfur, other countries stay out. I hope that works, it could get very messy. In the mean time our diplomats can argue and request reasonable action. They obviously already did; that's why our diplomat was expelled. Oh, we expelled Sudan's diplomat in response. A reasonable action so far. I hope it works.

$1:

Pakistan... You will never get that permission.

Even if we make it a joint NATO/Pakistan mission? I certainly don't want to invade another country. We can't afford to expand the regional conflict. Canada is the international boy scout; if we can't get the Pakistan government to cooperate, no one can.

$1:

Taliban... No they didn't attack us, they just heavily backed a terrorist group that launched an attack on one of our NATO allies and then when given the chance to capitulate by turning over the monster that planned it all they refused.

They didn't back al-Qaeda for the purpose of attacking the US or UK, they hired al-Qaeda as mercenaries to support their own cause inside Afghanistan. When asked to hand over al-Qaeda, they said "yes"; but they wanted to see the evidence first. Canada often asks to see the evidence before extraditing a suspect, that was reasonable. But George W. showed the evidence to everyone but the government of Afghanistan, everyone but those who matter.

[westmanguy]

I hope this issue goes to election.

It would be the perfect opportunity for us (Tories) to get our majority.

[Scrappy]

I don't think so west I believe the current poll states 51 percent against the mission. If we are a democracy the voice of the people must be heeded.

HEllO Winnipegger Bin Laden himself took credit for 911 and since then numerous terrorist organizations have taken responsibility for terror attacks. Most with links to Al Qaeda. What's it take to get the tin foilers to stop their nonsense, an Arab wearing a suicide vest aimed at them?

[westmanguy]

Harper needs to really make a big speech to the public on this issue.

If I was his speech-writer I would go something like:

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

Our Enemy is clear: the Taliban and Al Queda.

The Taliban aided Al Queda which changed the world on 911 with the events of that day against our #1 ally and NATO ally the USA.

Since then Al Queda has attacked many nations of the western world including the Madrid train bombings in Spain, the Underground bombings in the UK,

and yes, the thwarted plot, to behead me, other politicians, hijack the CBC, and use the same fertilizer explosives from the Oklahama bombings on the C.N. tower.

This is war is relevant to our nation and our closest allies.

Their will be death. We will lose soldiers. Yet holding votes every time a soldier dies hurts our soldiers in combat in Afghanistan, they need stability in their mission, and the political instability in this issue feuls are enemy.

/end speech

my god Canada is so passive and never wants to take a stand to anything, the people of this country need a kick in the ass and their heads examined.



Basically Harper's gotta be clear and pursuasive.