That was what our response intended to deter. Unrestricted use. If any use results in one getting hammered, unrestricted use is deterred.
It is a feeble excuse if there is no evidence to suggest it in this incident. What evidence have you seen?
But, I suppose that when one is searching for an excuse, any old excuse will do, including that one.
This makes me scratch my head a bit, because my whole point is that there is no good evidence for anything. Instead of advocating a knee-jerk reaction based on something really vague, I'm simply pointing out that both the sensible and Constitutional courses of action lie in waiting and seeing. If Assad indeed started using chemical weapons in a significant way, then surely actual evidence would pile up. Since the chances of his doing so - even in a worst-case scenario - in a fashion that would impact us is next to zero, there is no reason to be flying off the handle. Our planes and missiles will still be ready to launch in the event Assad did anything that actually threatened or annoyed us.
Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and the world was sympathetic, but Imperial Japan attacked anyway. If Assad thought he could get away with it, he'd do it. He crossed Obama's Red Line, and nothing happened. It was in our national interest to demonstrate to him that craven policy is no longer in effect.
Except Assad actually didn't cross Obama's red line, because the chemical weapons were actually used by rebels, and supplied by our "allies" of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Hillary actually wanted to go to war, but Kerry was incoming SOS and actually did his job.
On another note, I'm honestly and truly surprised to see self-identifying conservatives so vehement about enlisting the armed forces of the USA in the service of ISIS and their ilk.