America's Imperial Decline: Must Dick Cheney Always Be President? (by Patrick Smith, Salon.com)

[carolinayellowdog]

four final paras below-- link to full article here

I stand with the disappointed many. For a time it seemed that Obama’s surprisingly aggressive policies abroad reflected the hidden power of the defense and security establishments. As in, “Look, this is how we do it and here is where we draw your line. Cross it not.” It has also seemed possible that Obama may be acting out a Democratic Party dodge that goes back to the Cold War: If you don’t want to be called “soft on security,” better to look tougher than the hawks.

Neither of these explanations holds up any longer. There is no sign that the president is less than fully committed to an imperial presidency and to surveillance and espionage practices that exceed the Constitution and international law. A Turkish professor put it this way in a conversation with the Financial Times the other day: “He talks like the head of the American Civil Liberties Union, but he acts like Dick Cheney.”

Could one put it better? It is going to prove a costly mistake, this inability to do things differently in a different world. The Bush II years were one great big missed opportunity. And the Snowden affair suggests Washington has learned no lessons. Imperial decline, anyone?

Certain American leaders — O.K., a very few — seem to grasp how power and influence are to be exercised in the 21st century. Secretary of State John Kerry is laboring to convene a Syria conference and to reconvene Mideast talks, and he has been silent on the NSA’s goose chase. Kerry may be one of these leaders. Obama does not seem to be — or maybe that is it precisely: His job is to seem to be.