Rep. Nancy Pelosi was one of the fiercest critics of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but she said Wednesday that after seeing the intelligence on how the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons on its people "this time it's different. This time the intelligence is very clear.

"This is the responsibility of the (Bashar Assad) regime," the Democratic leader said in San Francisco Wednesday, as protesters demonstrated outside her office. "They have acted in a way that I believe is outside the circle of civilized human behavior and that we cannot ignore that if we intend to protect the American people."

Many of her closest California House allies - like Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland - and the state Democratic Party firmly oppose U.S. military action.

So do the majority of Americans, according to several polls. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released this week found that 59 percent of all respondents - including 54 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independent voters - oppose launching missile strikes at Syria in retaliation for the chemical attacks.

President Obama got a big boost Wednesday with 10-7 approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria. Three Republicans voted no.

Congress remains in recess, so most members are still in their districts, limiting the scope of the war debate. Pelosi doesn't expect the House to vote until next week.

Wednesday's vote was the first to address military action since lawmakers voted in October 2002 to give President George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq.

The resolution authorizes the use of force in Syria, but forbids ground troops and limits operations to 60 days with a possible 30-day extension.

Pelosi's remarks Wednesday were the most powerful yet from the influential House Minority Leader. She recalled being privy to intelligence briefings as senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee more than a decade ago, during the debate preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Then, Pelosi said Wednesday, "the intelligence did not support the threat."

When it was later learned that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - the Bush administration's pretext for the U.S. invasion - Pelosi said, "my members were happy that they trusted my judgment."

Democratic opposition

But many of her longtime allies aren't trusting her now. Or at least not yet. Many have issued vague statements praising Obama for seeking congressional input, but have shied away from taking a definitive stand.

Instead, Pelosi finds herself siding with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., in supporting military action.

"I think the difference might be that now she's supporting a Democratic administration, when then (during the Iraq War) it was a Republican administration," said Art Persyko, who organized about 75 antiwar demonstrators in front of Pelosi's office Wednesday.

Pelosi is opposed by some of the more liberal House Democrats, such as her longtime ally Lee, who wants the U.S. to "learn the lessons of the past" from its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.


Limited action

But Pelosi sought to define any such attack not as a war but as a limited military action. Pressed as to what that meant, Pelosi said, "I can't answer to you what the strike would be, but it would be limited, it would be targeted, tailored for the purposes we are talking about, and it would be short in duration."

Pelosi said she is not "whipping up" votes on the issue, but is listening to input from other members.

"It is in our national interest," Pelosi said. "The regional stability of the region is in our national interest. Global security, in relationship to weapons of mass destruction is in our national interest."

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Carolyn Lochhead contributed to this report from Washington. Joe Garofoli is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: Twitter: @joegarofoli