http://twitter.com/#!/AceofSpadesHQ/status/373193285226885120

The New York Times is reporting today that President Obama is willing to pursue a “limited military strike” on Syria even without support from U.S. allies (the British Parliament has just voted against military action against Syria).

That means that if President Obama decides to move forward with action against Syria without congressional approval, he’ll be, as Iowahawk points out, an “Army of One”:

http://twitter.com/#!/iowahawkblog/status/373193032855609344

Life on the battlefield can be a lonely one for a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but anything to bring back into style something that was incredibly frowned upon just a few years ago: Unilateralism:

http://twitter.com/#!/ExJon/status/373192390913163265

As for everybody else, they now have a name:

http://twitter.com/#!/ali/status/373196050263060480

But now the protesters we saw so much of during Bush’s administrations will most certainly leap into action, won’t they?

http://twitter.com/#!/charlescwcooke/status/373193642975830016

::crickets:: But perhaps there’s a perceived difference between an “Army of One” and an “Army of The One” that might render the unilateralism acceptable.

Jammie Wearing Fool channels Ed Schultz channeling Chris Matthews:

http://twitter.com/#!/JammieWF/status/373192831885529091

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2013/08/29/nyt-obama-willing-to-go-it-alone-in-syria-ace-iowahawk-others-slam-army-of-one/