Amir Taheri broke the news the other day that Senator Obama tried to delay an agreement on the troop levels in Iraq. This brought up the question of "Did Obama violate the Logan Act?". As I stated the other day, Obama's clearest defense of the Logan Act would be to claim that he was under the authority of the State Department (a highly dubious outcome). Alas, Senator Obama went with a different route:
OBAMA OBJECTS by Amir Taheri
The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was "filled with distortions," the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).
His defense is that he didn't interfere with the Status of Forces Agreement, but that he did interfere with the Strategic Framework Agreement. My question to the Senator is this: How does this still not constitute a violation of the Logan Act? Are you or are you not still guilty of interfering in the foreign policy of the Bush Administration (something that I showed the other day was the sole property of the Administration)?
Alas, the Logan Act has no teeth. Otherwise this would surely end Senator Obama's chances at the White House.