There's been two major complaints I've seen from many conservatives. One, they want military action against ISIS which could include boots on the ground. Two, that the instability in the region and the wide spread culling of christian arabs in the region wasn't enough to get Obama to act in some fashion.
So let's look at those two points and how that equates to your sound byte above...
"Obama doesn't Bomb ISIS, conservatives mad" -----> Somewhat of an immediete dishonest representation as if Bombing is all that "conservatives" are mad about. Does a conservative who wants point one have reason to be mad? Yes. Does a conservative who wants point two have reason to be mad? Yes.
"Obama bombs ISIS, conservatives mad becuas he doesn't bomb them enough" -----> Again, a dishonest representation of what "conservatives" want. But let's look if it's UNREASONABLE or INCONSISTENT for some Conservatives to still be upset with obama after this action. Does a conservative who wants point one still have reason to be mad? Absolutely, as he indicated we would not be open to full military action. Does a conservative who wants point two still have reason to be mad? Absolutely, as the most focused on reason for acting was neither about regional instability or the extensive amount of time killing Christian Arabs but rather due to the plight of a particular sect of people trapped within a certain geographical area.
"Obama says he's going to bomb ISIS more, conservatives mad because" -----> Because he's still largely been ruling out certain military action, which still doesn't sit well with those conservatives who feel like point one. As for point two, the fact it go to a point now that we're truly seemingly "getting serious[er]" only after an American was brutally killed as opposed to due to the earlier motivations on their part is still pretty consistent to be bothered by.
I don't think you're going to find many conservatives honestly upset Obama is taking action. Their upset becuase of 1) the action he's taking and specifically the action he's stated we won't take 2) the amount of time that it took him to take action 3) the things that motivated him to ultimately take action.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.