Opening with an ad homenim. Okay, lets see...
1. No dispute. 2. That would be because at the time the priority was ISIS? 3. No dispute. 4. Allegedly indirectly but okay. 5. and 6. Okay, here is where the dispute is.
The attitude was concern that Donald Trump killed a target with country we were not currently at war with. The primary concern was starting a war with Iran. As far as I know, no politicians other than Illan Omar, which I already said, expressed any direct regret for the loss of Soleimani. And, I should mention, that account is second-hand. I do not know what she said. Though, considering what I know of her, it sounds like something she would say. I'm not exactly a fan of hers.
I did pay attention. There was a legitimate concern that Donald Trump exercised the most extreme action to protect our military personnel. Obama authorized and monitored the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, who you might not have known because you were still a baby, had taken direct responsibility for what occurred on September 11, 2001 six months before Qasem Soleimani was designated a terrorist. So, it seems silly to me to believe only one "side" is for killing terrorists.
If you continue to simplify things to the point that people are questioning Trump's methods, which even military officials admitted was the most extreme options on the menu provided to him, then it seems to me that you do not have the maturity to continue with this conversation in a sensible manner.