Well, for what it's worth, you're correct. Nobody with any real power, save for the people in Trump's cabinet, would come out uncritically fellating the action. It was nonetheless demoralizing and giving me that sinking heart feeling like the runup to 2003 seeing these Acela corridor ghouls vibrating through the woodwork on social media crowing about how Trump truly became president that day, twisting themselves into pretzels to justify, entirely post hoc, how Soleimani was the most dangerous terrorist to have ever existed and that his death was a net benefit to humanity despite 99% of them having never heard of the fucker until that morning. In the eyes of the pundits, the think-tankers, the wonks and columnists, Trump had done the most Presidential thing they could possibly imagine: murdering a dozen brown people, and important ones at that, for no fucking reason. And in the wake of Iran's (frankly rather pathetic) retaliatory strike, those same creatures would come out urging Trump to strike back even harder at Iran for daring to fight back and mildly inconveniencing the The Troops by blowing up a bike shed in disused part of their base. They smelled blood in the water, and by god they were gonna go for it.

It's true the dem leadership, and the libs who actually wielded any real degree of political power would ultimately condemn Trump's actions, but I suspect it wasn't out of any principled objection to the inherent act so much as a reflexive impulse to condemn Trump for any action he took, such as it was in the waning Resistance era. They were probably more upset he beat them to the punch, given Obama's and Hillary's propensity for doing the same. Still, they did come to the right conclusion, for the wrong reasons.