Trump's military strike on Syria may have been an about-face, but it was a completely justified one. The article is correct that "Mr. Assad's brutality was well-known long before this week," and that candidate Trump had espoused a less interventionist approach with respect to Assad, but that was based on the Syrian leader's apparent commitment to refrain from gassing civilians. Assad's brutal decision to resume gas attacks, in clear violation of international norms, changed the equation, and the White House's position changed accordingly. 

Instead of recognizing Trump's decision as a reasonable response to an extraordinary event, the article searches for a less noble rationale for the strike, such as domestic politics or a desire to appear tough, with scant evidence to back it up. Had a Clinton, Bush or Obama carried out the exact same action, it is questionable whether such a vigorous attempt at impugning the President's motives would have been made.