It was pretty clear yesterday that Stephane Dion was musing aloud about intervening in Pakistan, up to and including military intervention on Pakistani territory:

Any attempt to counter terrorists war-torn Afghanistan will not succeed without an intervention in neighbouring Pakistan, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists.

"We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan," said Mr. Dion in Quebec City, commenting after his two-day trip to Afghanistan last weekend. "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan."

The Liberal leader explained that Afghan officials told him they know where the extremist strongholds are in Pakistan. But he said the Afghans don't take action.

"One day, we are going to have to act because our soldiers are cleaning out some areas, but in fact very often they are only clean in principle. The insurgents go take refuge in Pakistan and they are going to come back (to Afghanistan) at the earliest opportunity. This could last very long if we don't tackle the problems that often originate from Pakistan," Mr. Dion said.

Apparently a room full of reporters, all with tape recorders and the opportunity to carefully listen to Stephane Dion's words, got it wrong.  Putting NATO forces in Pakistan is really Stephane Dion's metaphor for diplomatic action.

Yeah, right:

Liberals were forced late yesterday to clarify comments from leader Stéphane Dion after he mused about co-operation between NATO forces and Pakistan.

Speaking in French after his return from Afghanistan, Mr. Dion made a comment to reporters about controlling the flood of terrorists from Pakistan into Afghanistan that sparked condemnation from his political rivals.

"If they [Pakistani leaders] are incapable of doing it themselves, it is something that we could envision with NATO forces; how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," Mr. Dion said in French.

"This is ludicrous," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told CTV News yesterday. "Mr. Dion seems to be suggesting that we now invade Pakistan as opposed to continue or further our mission in Afghanistan. ... To suggest that we should now go into Pakistan is absolute lunacy and I'm surprised that a leader, somebody who's just visited this country, would make such a suggestion."

The point of Mr. Dion's comment was to say that Canada wants NATO to work diplomatically with Pakistan to ensure Pakistan is part of the solution in the region, [Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre] said.

"There's no way that we will send troops or stuff like that."

The last time top Liberals were forced to "clarify" Stephane Dion's comments was after the Conservatives lowered the GST to 5%.  At the time, Stephane Dion suggested he would raise the GST if he became prime minister.  Of course, he didn't mean "raise", said Liberals caught flat-footed by this impromptu bit of Liberal policy making.  Canadians did not have to worry about paying more taxes under a Liberal government, they insisted.

Yeah, right.

The difference between these two Dionisms (dionism: (n) a subtle and complex uttering of Stephane Dion inevitably misunderstood by lesser humans who naively depend on accepted dictionary definitions of the words uttered by Stephane Dion) is that in the tax-hike example, Stephane Dion would not have offended the target constituency of the Liberals.  That constituency consists of NDP voters the Liberals are trying to woo to their side.

Far-left socialists are big fans of taxes.  Either they're unemployed and so want the rest of us to pay for their upkeep, or they naively believe that taxes are progressive based on progressiveness (the more conservative you are, the more you ought to pay in taxes).

But when it comes to Afghanistan, and a robust foreign policy in general, they are far more emotionally invested in their position, which is to run away and fight violent Islamic fundamentalism with UN resolutions heavily laced with Marxist theory.  The current situation, as they see it, is evil:

Canada has no fucking business negotiating ceasefires or giving money or imposing "political reforms and democracy" on anyone. Canada's contribution is to hike up its skirts and get the hell out, now.

The word "counterinsurgency". It leaves a door open for [Canadian troops to engage in] occupation, interference, marauding, and more murder.

Apparently, there's not enough village razing going on in the NATO sectors to satisfy the Americans.

These people see Canadian troops as evil, Canadian politicians who think we ought to be in Afghanistan in any military capacity as evil, and anyone who voted for the Conservatives or the Liberals as evil.

When Stephane Dion messes up on a comment on taxes, people notice, and are concerned.

When Stephane Dion messes up on a comment on Afghanistan, especially musing about some dramatic increase in the scope of mission, people notice, and go far beyond concerned.  People like me just laugh out loud, but people like those who express sentiments like the ones quoted above are alarmed.  And furious.  And strangely satisfied.

They are satisfied that Stephane Dion is just playing them.  That despite his Green talk -- whatever worries these true believers had that the Liberals could draw votes from the NDP are allayed.  In a debate, all they have to do is remind people on the fence that Stephane Dion thinks military action in Pakistan is a good thing.

As long as Stephane Dion is allowed to speak without a carefully scripted set of comments to guide him, Canada's centre left will never be united.

As it is, he is just the leader of the opposition, so his comments have little impact beyond Canadian borders, and no impact at all on Canadian policy.  But his comments do have an impact on the perceptions of those Canadians who might be tempted to "lend their votes" to Stephane Dion.

I doubt anyone seriously believes Stephane Dion would have the guts to back a move into Pakistan, even if there was a single person in the Western alliance who thought it was a good idea.  He would blanche and mewl about competing priorities. 

What does Stephane Dion believe?  Seriously?  Unscripted he says Canada ought to support an intervention in Pakistan.  The next day Liberals started saying the opposite.  Unscripted he says he'd consider raising the GST.  The next day Liberals started saying the opposite.

But cleaning up the Pakistan mess means going back and reinvesting time and effort to fool NDP supporters that the Liberals are a suitable stand-in for the NDP.  Stephane Dion has just made that a lot harder to do, the second time around.