Logan Act? Yeah, right.

In a NY Post column, Amir Taheri wrote that Barack Obama, during his recent visit to Iraq, tried to persuade the Iraqis to hold off on negotiating an agreement on US forces in Iraq until after George Bush's term ends in January. His exact words:

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari said in an interview.

The Obama campaign was quick to issue a denial:

Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

OK. Maybe I, being a knuckle-dragging conservative neanderthal, am incapable of grasping the subtle differences between the two, but they sure sound pretty goddamned similar.

The righty blogs are abuzz with talk of a Logan Act prosecution, but I think that even those who bring it up know that's wishful thinking. According to Wikipedia, "there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act." Republicans are unlikely to broach the topic out of fear of setting a precedent and having it backfire on them when the roles are reversed.

This, of course, doesn't negate the fact that Obama, by his campaign's own admission, violated the act and in fact undermined the Presiden't constitutional authority as the sole owner of foreign policy.

How is it that a former professor of constitutional law didn't know that?