In late 2002 and early 2003, when it was clear that George W. Bush was hell-bent on starting a war with Iraq, did Michael Arcuri support the war or did he oppose it?
Some commenters here have said that, as District Attorney for Oneida County, Michael Arcuri could not take a public position on the war, because district attorneys are supposed to be seen as above politics and so can't take positions on important issues.
Well, if that's true, then how come District Attorney Michael Arcuri is making statements on a range of issues now?
Ah, say Arcuri's supporters, well, Arcuri is running for a legislative position now, so the ethics are different.
Are they, really?
Is Michael Arcuri still not District Attorney for Oneida County? Is he not still supposed to be regarded as above politics?
What's the difference between then and now?
Here's the difference:
If was wrong for Mike Arcuri to go public with a position on war in Iraq for the sake of the families of the 24th District, what makes it ethically acceptable for Arcuri to go public with a position on the Iraq War now, for the sake of his personal political ambition?
Please, explain these ethics to me. Explain the consistent moral principles behind Arcuri's stance now and in 2003.
Hint: Just saying that "this is how things are done" or that "this is the way that real politics are played" is won't cut it. We're talking ethics here, and power for the sake of power is a pretty low ethical standard.
As I said before, if someone can bring me evidence that Michael Arcuri did anything to stand against the Iraq War in 2003, I'd be happy to report that here.