"This is patently false. Clearly the individual who leaked this misinformation is attempting to sow division. This is causing harm to our party and to our caucus," the e-mail said.
Still, in a subsequent interview, Cullen did not promise categorically to support his leader.
"This is an important issue and I'll do my damnedest to try to be part of the team and do whatever I can, especially going into an election," he said.
"By the same token, you've got to do what you think is right as well."
Multiple sources have told The Canadian Press that Cullen told caucus he doesn't support the leader's position but fell short of actually vowing to vote against it.
Sources say only one of Cullen's colleagues - Victoria MP Keith Martin - applauded his remarks. However, Nova Scotia MP Robert Thibault and Toronto MP Carolyn Bennett urged Dion to rethink his position.
Cullen said Friday he's dissatisifed with the positions taken by both Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper has adopted the recommendations of the Manley panel that the combat mission be extended beyond next February, provided that NATO reinforces Canada's soldiers with 1,000 more troops and equipment.
...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080208/national/liberal_afghan_dissent
Note: http://ca.news.yahoo.co...
Liberals Paper Over Internal Divisions On Afghan Combat Mission
Posted on Saturday, February 09 at 13:00 by N SayContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
If that sounds like I am pissed with this lot then you have got the picture. The MSM need to get off their arse and stop publishing everything they are fed without question, investigative reporting, what’s that!
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
<br />
Irregardless of our thoughts about the mission, we are now faced with a motion by the Haper government in this regard. They have said that the extension to the mission is contingent upon getting more troops and equipment as recommended by Manley. That is NOT however what the motion says!<br />
<br />
VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION - READ CAREFULLY……………<br />
<br />
From the Afghan motion as posted at <a href="http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=105248&tid=105248&eid=48&so=1&ps=0&sb=1">http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=105248&tid=105248&eid=48&so=1&ps=0&sb=1</a><br />
<br />
<br />
“Canada’s combat role should be commensurately reduced, on condition that:<br />
<br />
(a) Canada secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1000 to arrive and be operational no later than February 2009, to expand International Security Assistance Force’s security coverage in Kandahar;<br />
<br />
(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.”<br />
<br />
<br />
Please note that it DOES NOT say that remaining in Afghanistan is commensurate on the extra help and equipment but that THE COMBAT ROLE REDUCTION role should be commensurately reduced on that condition.I read this to say that they propose to say in a combat role till 2011 (and possibly beyound) whether get the 1000 troops or not.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp