The bottom line question isn’t what Ivanka thought. It’s whether or not it was the right thing to do. If the Assad Administration with or without Russia’s complicity, launched the CW attack (and I believe they did), then retaliating was the right thing to do.
You said if it’s true then retaliating was the right thing to do. My question is why? What business is it of ours? What happened to America First? What is our national interest in replacing yet another Middle East dictator and opening the door for the Radical Islamists to take control in Syria? If that idiot, Obama, had not rushed to take our troops out of Iraq when we had it won, then maybe. But he left the ME in shambles and now things are vastly more complicated with Russia involved.
What does the Syria strike accomplish? Convincing Assad to kill people in a more palatable fashion? Oh, goody.
Worse yet, what if Syria ignores the strike and launches chemical weapons again? Then we “have to” bomb him again. But if the first attack didn’t work, will it have to be stronger this time? What if he keeps thumbing his nose at the administration? Trump will “have to” take him out then to not look weak. Then what do we do, occupy the country like Iraq or throw it to the wolves like Libya?
This bombing suddenly gives us a stake in the war which gives Assad a lot of control over our next move, not a good position for us to be in.