A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 86% of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on a Syria for the same reason while just 11% are opposed.

“Overall, a bare 51% majority of U.S. adults support the president’s action in our new poll. In 2013, just 30% supported strikes. That swing is driven primarily by GOP partisans. For context, 37% of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38% of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.”

Eric Trump told the Daily Telegraph that President Trump’s decision to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria proved he is not in league with Russia and will not be “pushed around” by Vladimir Putin.

“He also confirmed that President Trump’s decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister Ivanka, who said she was ‘heartbroken and outraged’ by the atrocity.”

Josh Rogin: “The Trump administration’s strike on one of Bashar al-Assad’s air bases was similar in style and objectives to the strike plan that President Barack Obama prepared in 2013 — except that Obama’s attacks were to be several times bigger than President Trump’s. At the time, leading Republicans mocked the Obama administration for what it called ‘pinprick’ strikes, calling them ineffective. Today they praise Trump’s smaller strikes as perfectly calculated.”

Rick Klein and Shushannah Walshe: “This was one of the loudest moments of the Trump presidency. But viewed another way, it may be one of the quietest. President Trump’s highest-profile foreign-policy critics inside his own party – John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio – have seldom offered stronger support for Trump. Democrats and some Republicans are calling for congressional authorization of the military action, but fewer are questioning the airstrikes themselves. European allies that have openly wondered about US leadership in the age of Trump are on board as well.”

“Among those who are upset? The Russians and Iranians. Trump finds himself on a patch of moral high ground, and he has demonstrated a clear break from Obama administration policy with his decisive action. This president has had few moments that offer this much opportunity, yet also this much peril.”

CNN: “The decision to use military force against Syria marks a remarkable reversal for Trump. In 2013, he was a vocal critic of President Obama’s contemplation of strikes in Syria following President Bashar al-Assad’s initial use of chemical weapons against his own people. (Obama had previously said that the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian citizenry would be crossing a “red line” for him).”

Said Trump in one tweet: “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”

“During the course of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump insisted that the Obama administration was letting its commitment to political correctness outweigh the fight against terrorism. He specifically targeted Obama’s willingness to accept Syrian refugees as a prime example of misguided policies that he would change. He signed an executive order — blocked by a federal court — that sought to ban all refugees from Syria.”

“While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked. The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.”

— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), quoted by The Hill, after the U.S. launched airstrikes in Syria.

President Trump “said that the United States had carried out a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack this week that killed more than 80 civilians,” the New York Times reports.

Said Trump: “Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

Washington Post: “The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.”

Huffington Post: “It is not clear what ― if any ― legal authority Trump is claiming to strike the Assad regime.”

The Intercept: “One of the proposals drawn up is a ‘saturation strike’ using dozens of cruise missiles designed to hit Syrian military targets —including military air fields — in an effort to limit future Syrian Air Force attacks on rebel positions, according to the two U.S. military officials.”

“The proposed strike would involve launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to overwhelm Russian air defense systems used by the Syrian military. The Russian government currently helps maintain the air defense sites and advises the Syrian military.”

“According to both U.S. military officials, the current proposal would likely result in Russian military deaths and mark a drastic escalation of U.S. force in Syria.”

“Senior Defense Department officials are developing options for a military strike in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians on Tuesday,” the New York Times reports.

“American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government aircraft carried out the attack… The development of new options is complicated by the presence of Russian military aircraft and personnel in Syria.”

Washington Post: “Some officials urged immediate action, warning against what one described as ‘paralysis through analysis.’ But others were concerned about second- and third-order effects, including the response of Russia, which also has installed sophisticated air-defense systems in Syria.”

President Trump said the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria “crossed many, many lines” for him, and he said his attitude toward Syria and President Bashar Assad had “changed very much” as a result, Politico reports.

Said Trump: “It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. Many, many lines.”

Washington Post: “Trump said the grinding Syrian conflict, in its seventh year, ‘is now my responsibility,’ but repeated campaign-trail criticism of the Obama administration for threatening military action and then backing off.”

New York Times: “In a private session at the White House, Mr. Obama explained that his refusal to redeploy large numbers of troops to the region was rooted in the grim assumption that the casualties and costs would rival the worst of the Iraq war. In such a scenario, he said, a renewed commitment could take up to $10 billion a month and leave as many as 500 troops wounded every month in addition to those killed, a toll he deemed not commensurate to the threat.”