Sorry but has he changed his mind?
No, but the context has changed. What he was talking about in 2004 is not the same thing as what we are talking about now. I think that under current circumstances, Mr. Dean might have something entirely different to say. Something along the lines of "It would be sheer folly to attack Iran at this juncture. The American people could not be expected to support such a move."
I think the point is that if the Democrats are faced with a decision of either supporting the administration or facing the AIPAC repercussions, the Democrats will side with the administration and claim some lame excuse about national security etc.
That may be your point, and it is worthy of examination. However your contention that ABC was referring to Dem "frustration" that the Bush Administration wasn't being belligerent enough is still unsupported, and IMHO unsupportable.
All the rest have stated repeatedly, all options are on the table. This is simple political expediency .... rhetorical pablum for the masses.
True. But another thing it is not: it is not a quote to support the contention that Dem's are "frustrated" because the Administration isn't being belligerent enough. It is not a quote to support the contention that Dem's are joining with their Republican colleagues in a clamor to "play the Cheney card".
I haven't seen any answers to these questions but it is clear that without such answers the administration has done the job of bottling the argument in their favor.
Well yes, they have bottled the argument in their favor. But, to make a metaphor, it's like "old coke" versus "new coke". The Iraq run-up was the "old coke", and people bought it even though it was bad for their health. "New coke" just didn't sell, and so rather than investing in a losing product, they simply stopped bottling it.
Any concession that Iran makes, real or imagined, can be "bottled" in the Administration's favor. You know that, rporter, you're a savvy cat. If the Russians work a deal with them, the Administration is perfectly capable of taking credit for it. If they want to.
Our job, as American citizens, is to provide the incentive for them to want to.
All of which brings us back to the original question of Democratic party support for the Israeli solution of the Iranian question.
Indeed it does. So far, by your failure to dig up a
single quote to show that a current Dem office-holder supports the "Israeli solution" - by which I take it you mean the title of this thread - you have shown that the Dem Party
does not support the "Israeli solution".
