Buckdog

POSTSCRIPT:
And here is a 'Prairie Flip'em the Bird' to the gentleman who posts on the blogsite know as 'The Sir Robert Bond Papers' for his little gutter snipe opinion entitled 'Dipocrits'. That should receive a nomination for 'worst hit and run' blog posting of the year.

BUD, you have performed a classic Liberal 'dipsy doodle' - you have attacked the NDP and completely ignored the essential question being asked in this thread. What is Liberal Party policy on the Canadian mission in Afghainistan; and while we are on it, where do each of the Liberal leadership hopefuls stand on whatever it is that passes for Liberal policy on the matter???

I think it's fair to ask what each leadership candidate's position on Afghanistan is (especially since I need to know this in helping to determine who I'll vote for come next election...) but perhaps it's less fair, right now, to ask what the "Party's" position is.

Won't "the party's" position be shaped by the leader? Is it not possible that a Bob Rae Liberal party might have a different position on Afghanistan than a Michael Ignatieff Liberal party?

Again, the leadership candidates should be vocal, and clear about their position, so that Liberals (I'm not one btw...) can make an informed decision about what kind of party they want to have moving forward. But it doesn't seem fair to me to attack the leaderless Liberals for not having a "unified position" in the middle of a leadership race. If all Liberals feel the same, what's the point in having a convention? They should just draw names out of a hat.

It is certainly incumbent upon the leadership candidates to be open and honest about their positions on such an important issue. But decrying a lack of a "united position" in any party in the middle of a race to choose a new leader seems a bit silly to me.

It IS a fair criticism of the Lib Party. For the last couple of days, I have watched New Democrats being attacked by Liberals for the policy on Afghanistan, when you and I both know that there are a number of Liberals who share that policy.

I see this as the Liberal Party trying to play both sides of the street, and yet have the call to attack the NDP.

Case in point is the drive by snipe committed by this gutless twerp!@!
Liberal Hit and Run Artist

Yes, but the NDP have a leader (with 92% support apparently) and have ratified their Afghanistan position in a public convention vote.

If there are people who share the NDP position in the Liberal party who are nevertheless criticizing said position, by all means attack that. But there are plenty in the Liberal party who think it's an asinine position too. Until they choose a leader, it seems to me the party could end up going either way.

As I said, leadership candidates must be clear about their stance, and everyone should feel free to attack them, either way. But comparing a party with no leader (and therefore no unified position) to a party with a leader who has the overwhelming support of his party, and his party's ratification of its Afghanistan position seems disingenuous at best.

One of my two dearly departed old Grandmothers was a life long Liberal ( the other a stalwart old CCF'er).

The Liberal Grandma always called New Democrats 'Liberals in a hurry'. Perhaps she was correct.

Fault me not for believing that the current Lib leadership race is taking FAR too long to accomplish. The issues of the day require leadership, and I am anxious for the final debate.