Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the long-serving Democrat whose district encompasses the United Nations complex, got slammed during the UN general assembly this week by her GOP rival, Christopher Wight, as soft on Israel. "Carolyn Maloney once again demonstrated her glaring negligence in protecting Israel. Rather than insisting that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, Carolyn Maloney conceded Iranian nuclear weapons," he said. "In her own words the question is no longer ‘if’ but ‘when.’"
He added that she was "emboldening Iran and sending conflicting messages to the international community. She is not providing badly needed leadership or advocating for solutions with clear next steps" in terms of the "red line" issue.
Wight was seizing on a statement from Maloney made this week, viewable here...Wight's statement indicated the line about "if but when" conceded a different reality.
The issue of Israel has been applied broadly in the presidential race this cycle, and more surgically in downballot races. But with the election cycle drawing to a close, and given the physical parameters of Maloney's district, it was inevitable this would be an issue this week.
why was it 'inevitable'?
was her statement truly inevitable? could it have been avoided?
was Wight's reaction inevitable?
is Obama's stance inevitable?