It's worth noting that the hand-wringing about Israeli IDF atrophy actually goes back to 1973, when a fore-warned Israeli military was still taken off-guard on Yom Kippur and only with US intervention managed to avert complete disaster. Images of rusted tanks and unprepared soldiers led to a lot of anxiety about the need for constant preparedness, which (if I can remember what my parents have told me) is a big reason behind why Israeli soldiers are now constantly in their uniforms with their weapons with them at all times.

I have to point out, in Sullivan's defense, that the term "Cheneyesque" is most likely referring to Dick Cheney's remark "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter" (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm ). Sullivan frequently uses that statement to sum up everything that's wrong with how politicians approach the Federal budget. The original statement by Bernstein is in line with that same sentiment.

I can understand, however, that comparing someone to Cheney carries a lot more baggage than that statement. But I don't think that Sullivan meant to compare Bernstein to, say, Cheney's stance on torture.

Actually, to be fair to the FDA, they're following in the lead of the Australian government:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/the-aussies-serious-about-smoking/66218/

It seems to me that it wouldn't be stepping outside of the President's authority to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell by executive order. Here's my reasoning:

1) The President is given the authority as Commander in Chief to make any policy within US law regarding the military.
2) Congress passed a law restricting the President's authority on this issue by implementing Don't Ask Don't Tell.
3) A Federal District Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and placed an injunction on enforcing the law.

Now, if the President of the United States used his authority over the Justice Department to decline an appeal, or if the President waited until the appeal was exhausted (risking that the appeal might succeed), then the legal restriction would no longer be over the President. It would once again return to being a military issue, and as Commander-in-Chief of the military, this is precisely what Executive Orders are supposed to be.

Resisting the "imperial presidency" doesn't mean that the President can't change anything; the President can change, by executive order, anything within his authority under the separation of powers. On the other hand, the creation of internment camps by executive order exerted direct authority over people outside the military, and thus was outside the separation of powers.