Arcuri's supporters have quickly come up with a justification for this apparent inaction: Michael Arcuri was ethically bound to remain silent because, as a District Attorney, he is not supposed to publicly declare his positions on political issues.
Just yesterday, someone left a comment here from this perspective, and added a challenge to it:
"Arcuri is a DA. He had no business formulating an opinion on the Iraq war at the time. It would have been unethical. I challenge you to name ONE DA who spoke out for or against the war."
There are two problems with this claim, one of which I've already noted.
First, there's the problem that Michael Arcuri is a District Attorney now, and he's taking a public position on the war now. If take such a position against the war now, why couldn't he take such a position back in 2003? What's changed?
Well, one thing that's changed is that Michael Arcuri is now wants a job other than District Attorney. Michael Arcuri wants to be promoted to Congress now, and Congress deals with issues of war and peace. But, Michael Arcuri has refused to resign from his position as District Attorney during the campaign, keeping the job just in case he loses. He is still under all the professional and ethical obligations as he was before the campaign.
Another thing that's changed is that the war is not politically popular any more.
Secondly, there's that point in the challenge: That I should name one District Attorney who spoke out in favor of or opposition to the war. Well, I'll go that challenge one better. I'll name the public attorney for our entire state, the man who is, in effect, the District Attorney for all of New York: Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer spoke in public about his support of the starting the Iraq War. In New York, he's the district attorney of all district attorneys, so if he could speak out in public about his position on starting the Iraq War, there's no reason that Michael Arcuri couldn't have done the same thing.
These explanations just don't hold up.
Now, some people are upset at me for just asking the question of whether Michael Arcuri supported George W. Bush in starting the Iraq War in 2003, or whether Arcuri was against the war at the time.
Arcuri could come out and say that he was privately against the war, and gave some kind of quiet support, such as financial support, to antiwar non-profit organizations. So far, Arcuri hasn't made any such statement, and until he does, voters will naturally have questions on the issue.
How long Arcuri's campaign wants voters to ask these questions is up to them. As usual, the Arcuri campaign seems to be a bit slow in their reactions.