One of the defining characteristics of the Bush regime has been its fetish for secrecy, for choosing to scuttle about in the dark even when it's not absolutely necessary (at least on grounds of national interest; on political grounds they seem to think everything needs to be covered up). Has Bush cut secret deals? Sounds like a sucker bet to me; of course he has.

I doubt that they intended for it to leak that they were negotiating a treaty"memorandum of understanding" for permanent American military bases in Iraq. Relabelling a treaty as some sort of bureaucratic email would, they must've hoped, help circumvent the Constitutional requirement for the Senate to approve any treaties. And wouldn't that have been a stinker of a surprise for President Obama?

(Not that I"m counting my chickens before they hatch, but you know that McBush would've been fully briefed on these little turd land mines.)

You're probably right that State has been substantially cut out of the loop, even with Condi at the helm. The Bushies have always mistrusted and despised the career staff at State, and I've no doubt that Rice has kept her own bureaucracy in the dark a lot of the time. She'll take her secrets with her when she leaves, and there'll be no continuity provided by the professionals.

As for the consequences, I think the fact that these agreements were made in secret will relieve the next president of any obligation to honor them, unless he judges them to be in our best interests. The downside to circumventing the Constitution and Senatorial review of treaties is that the US is not legally bound by those agreements. Or maybe that's the upside?