Though Coulter said she doesn't believe Assad actually did use chemical weapons and suspects the rebels were behind the recent attack, she said even if he did it's no excuse for getting involved in another "pointless war."
"I don't care if it was Assad who used these chemical weapons," she said. "I'm tired of regime change. I'm tired of war."
"But this, again, is not the first time we've had a Reichstag fire for some pointless war," Coulter said. "In the Gulf War, famously we were told that Iraqi troops were rushing in and throwing -- always the babies, it's always the children -- taking babies out of Kuwaiti hospitals and pulling them out of incubators and throwing them on the floor."
"[We were shown] congressional testimony from an alleged nurse who witnessed this, an eyewitness herself, and then people looked at her and said, wait a second that's not a nurse that's the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter, and it was, the whole thing was a hoax," she said.
Coulter continued: "It turns out that weapons of mass destruction -- and you and I had other reasons for wanting to fight the Iraq war, though I don't think I do it again knowing that Obama would come in and give away our victory -- but the weapons of mass destruction was played up not by you and me but by people in the administration, 'a slam-dunk case.'"
"We have been lied to over and over in cases like this and I do not think [Trump's attack on Syria] shows toughness, I think it shows everything Trump's enemies said about him -- that he's erratic, that he's emotional, that he's desperate for approval -- it wasn't because they violated some some horrible, you know, laws of war and humanity," she said.
"I've never understood why it is so much worse to die by a chemical than to have your head shot off, or to have your head chopped off. A half a million people have died already, this was 70 people, it makes no sense, whether or not he did it."
Coulter went on to say what Trump "said on the campaign trail about not starting World War III over Syria" "was right."
Thomas Friedman, in his column "Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?," first suggested Trump arm the rebel terrorists fighting alongside ISIS so they can shoot down "Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed":
We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.
He then called for not fighting ISIS terrorists in Syria and letting them be Iran's, Russia's, Hezbollah's and Assad's "problem."
What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they’re the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war — the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.
...Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.
Friedman's words almost perfectly echo those of the powerful "Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies" Israeli think tank, whose director Efraim Inbar said last year that ISIS "can be a useful tool in undermining" Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia.