Last night, as news emerged of President Trump's missile strike against a Syrian airfield,

Twitter quickly began examining Trump's old tweets from 2013, many of which opposed the possibility

of action in Syria by Barack Obama. He tweeted, what will we get for bombing Syria? Besides more

debt and a possible long-term conflict, Obama needs congressional approval. He also tweeted,

The president must get congressional approval before attacking Syria. Big mistake, if he does not.

And then there was the reexamination of Senator Ted Cruz's position on American involvement in the Syrian conflict.

In 2013, Cruz said that Assad's chemical weapons use was, quote, not a direct threat to U.S. national security and added that such behavior was, quote, well outside the traditional scope of U.S. military action.

Now, Cruz is silent on Trump's airstrikes, adding, quote, I look forward to our commander in chief making the case to Congress and the American people. In 2013, I was one of the people who opposed Obama's pre-stated pinprick strike. I tweeted at Hugh Hewitt, lobbing missiles into Syria without decapitating the regime, strengthens both Assad and the mullahs. I also wrote in a column around that time that Obama's strategy was destined to fail because

he had no credibility to uphold. He was negotiating a deal with the Syrian sponsor state Iran.

He was undermining American allies all over the region. He was making the only standard

for intervention use of chemical weapons while ignoring all of Assad's other war atrocities.

So, what's changed between 2013 and now? Three things. First, Trump can reestablish American

credibility. Obama had already blown American credibility out of the water for four years by the time

Assad gassed his own people. It was obvious to everybody, Democrats and Republicans, that not only

did Obama lack a plan in Syria,

he was looking to launch a few missiles to silence criticisms of his pathetic foreign policy.

As I tweeted then, hitting a few donkeys in the rear in Syria wouldn't do anything but

make Assad look stronger and the United States weaker. The same is not true of Trump.

He's a brand new president, a man of mystery on foreign policy. A coherent plan of action following a strong immediate response to a chemical attack can

help reshape the map in different ways than Obama could in 2013.

Second, the Russian-Iranian axis is now operative in Syria.

After Obama hands it over control of Syria to Russia in 2013, I wrote this.

...