Dean only stated that his views fall closer on the issue's spectrum to AIPAC's views than Peace Now's. One needn't get very far right to make that statement.
Dean never claimed to be to the right of Bush on the issue. And this article offered absolutely no proof that he is.
Come on, you are not new to politics. Being on the right or left of an issue, a hawk or a dove, is merely a term to designate how a candidate is posturing. Dean will never say "I am getting to the Right of Bush on Israel;" that is simply not how politics works as if I needed to tell you.
There are numerous articles from anti-war conservatives and libertarians on the issue:
THE DEAN DECEPTION
The lying S.O.B.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html Matt Baganier:
Candidate Dean Is a Warmonger
And other reasons to support his campaign
http://www.antiwar.com/barganier/barg-col.html Anthony Gankarski:
A Tale of Two Democrats
Dean Knows the Road to the Presidency Runs Through AIPAC HQ
http://www.antiwar.com/gancarski/gan080803.html As well as articles in leftwing journals:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm But let me ask, is it your basic contention that Dean is not trying to get to the Right of Bush on Israel? Then why did you post this article?