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”:
An Army of One http://t.co/dPGXL6hEoK
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 29, 2013
Rambobama http://t.co/dPGXL6hEoK
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 29, 2013
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:
How Unilateralism Got Its Groove Back…. NY TIMES: "Obama Is Willing to Go It Alone in Syria, Aides Say" http://t.co/JHpS11pGPD
— jon gabriel (@exjon) August 29, 2013
As for everybody else, they now have a name:
https://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?
Anti-war protesters who definitely weren't just progressives who hated Bush, this is your cue: http://t.co/HE6A7DWJqH
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) August 29, 2013
::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:
https://twitter.com/JammieWF/status/373192831885529091
Join the conversation as a VIP Member