The American Ambassador to Syria told a Senate committee on Thursday that it is vital that the United States support “moderate” Syrian rebels battling extremists who are also opposed to Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Extremist Syrian rebel groups with ties to al Qaeda and other terrorists — such as Jahbat al-Nusra — have emerged as some of the best trained, organized and equipped forces fighting Syrian government troops and some are concerned that their prominence in Syria could tip the country toward a more extremist-oriented government should Assad’s regime fall.

For this reason, U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon that “it is very important that we weigh in on behalf” of the moderate forces, such as factions of the more secular and democratic Free Syrian Army. That’s why, Ford added, the Obama administration is providing non-lethal aid to vetted rebels.

But the U.S. ambassador stopped short of advocating military assistance. Ford said the U.S. strategic goals in Syria are to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of extremist groups, disallow Syria as a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks against the U.S. and its allies and to assure that Syria is a source of stability in the region. “We do not think that this can be achieved without a political, negotiated transition,” Ford said.

Later in the hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lashed out at Ford after the ambassador could not say whether the U.S. has the military capability to enact a no-fly zone in Syria. “I’m an economist, not a military strategist,” Ford said.

“Wait a minute – you’re supposed to know the situation on the ground,” said McCain, according to the Hill. “You were the ambassador there. If anybody is supposed to know what’s going on in Syria, it’s you.” The Arizona Republican said Syrian rebels he has met are “angry and bitter” at the Obama administration’s refusal to provide arms to the rebels.

Earlier in the hearing, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said the U.S. should start moving toward providing such assistance. “In my view, looking at the situation as it exists, the time has come to consider providing military aid to the opposition.”

The White House has been so-far reluctant to provide offensive military hardware to the Syrian rebels. But the administration will reportedly send body armor and night vision goggles to those fighting Assad’s forces, but those reports have yet to be confirmed.

“Our assistance has been on an upward trajectory, and the president has directed his national security team to identify additional measures so that we can increase assistance,” a senior administration official told the New York Times.

Last week the United States evacuated its remaining diplomats in Syria amid fears of increasing violence closing in on the capital, Damascus. U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford took to Facebook last Friday calling on the Bashar al-Assad regime to end the fighting and bring about a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria. “When we see disturbing photos offering proof that the regime is using mortars and artillery against residential neighborhoods, all of us become even more concerned about the tragic outcome for Syrian civilians,” he wrote.

In a new interview with France 24, Ford, speaking in Arabic, renewed calls for a peaceful resolution and said the international community needs to “find the necessary financial means to support” the nearly 70,000 internally displaced refugees. Ford also said flat out that the United States does not support outside military intervention:

FORD [English translation from Arabic]: The American position is stating that we reject any type of military intervention in Syria, let’s be clear about that. … We are striving for a peaceful solution and even the Syrian people do not want a military solution to this problem to the Syrian crisis.

Watch the interview:

Also today, United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay called the Assad regime’s violent crackdown “crimes against humanity” and that the Security Council’s failure to act has emboldened Syria’s security forces to launch an all-out assault to crush dissent.

Last year, Senate Republicans blocked career diplomat Robert Ford’s confirmation to become the next U.S. ambassador to Syria because they thought sending a top envoy to Damascus would be a “reward” to President Bashar al-Assad for bad behavior. A number of Ford’s detractors have since changed their minds — including some senators who opposed Ford’s confirmation and the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative — and are now calling on the Senate to confirm Ford, whose recess appointment expires at the end of the year.

But has Ford’s presence in Syria, particularly since the pro-democracy movement began, been particularly rewarding for Assad and his regime? Yesterday, a pro-government group tried to attack Ford and his American delegation as they traveled to a meeting with an opposition leader. A State Department spokesperson said, “The mob was violent” and “seriously” damaged the delegation’s vehicles.

Indeed, the incident indicates the level at which Ford has become a thorn in the Assad regime’s side. He has defied travel bans to meet with opposition leaders throughout Syria, made unannounced trips to Syrian cities that have been hotbeds of unrest, and even attended the funeral of a “high-profile” Syrian human rights activist who died in custody (see video of Ford’s appearance here. Syrian security forces attacked the funeral shortly after the ambassador departed). Ford regularly takes his on-the-ground experiences in Syria to Facebook where he lashes out at the regime for its violent crackdown on protesters (he wrote today about yesterday’s attack).

Referring to Ford as America’s “am-badass-ador” in Syria last night on MSNBC, host Rachel Maddow wondered what the Senate Republicans are waiting for:

MADDOW: After all this guy’s been through, after all this guy has done, after everything he’s doing in Syria — Republicans in the United States Senate have not been able to bring themselves to allow him to be confirmed. Seriously? No, really? Seriously? Come on!

Watch the clip:

But apparently, some Senate Republicans still find Ford’s activity in Syria rewarding to Assad. An aide to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), the senator who placed the hold on Ford’s confirmation last year, said that he still “continues to stand by the concerns” he had then about sending an ambassador to Damascus. Coburn’s office has ignored repeated inquiries into whether he plans to again place a hold on Ford given that his confirmation now has widespread conservative support. “You could potentially anticipate a number of senators putting holds on Ford,” a GOP Senate aide said earlier this month.

Ford himself urged the Senate to confirm. “Lower level diplomats are great, but they don’t carry the weight, they don’t carry the prestige of the president’s personal representative,” he said last week. “I think we owe it to [Syrians] to remain supportive and it try to build that support wisely, carefully but to build that support,” Ford said in his Senate hearing last month.

When President Obama said he intended to fill the five-year vacancy at the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria, Republicans went wild, expressing opposition to an appointment and, eventually, blocking confirmation. Last December, Obama gave a recess appointment to Ambassador Robert Ford. With that appointment slated to expire at the end of the year, some conservatives continued to insist that Ford should be recalled or signaled that they again intend to block his confirmation.

But the tide — even among conservatives — has begun turning in favor of Ford’s confirmation as he’s established himself in a critical role as the Syrian government’s continued a months-long deadly crackdown against non-violent anti-government protests. The change came when Ford put his own life on the line to reach out to the Syrian opposition, even going so far as to join protesters in the street in a “show of solidarity.” Ford has also become the lynchpin of a U.S. policy now looking beyond the rule of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad.

The latest conservative turn toward Ford came from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Inhofe was one of a group of Republican senators that signed a May 2010 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arguing that any engagement with the Syrian regime constituted a “reward” for Assad’s government. But as Ben Birnbaum reported in the Washington Times today, Ihofe’s changed his tune:

“I really changed my mind on this,” said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“He has done some things that are just really impressive. He’s gone to places where the protesters are. He’s been roughed up a few times. I had the impression that he wouldn’t be quite strong enough, and I’ve been proven wrong.”

In an interview with Birnbaum, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) went even further, accusing those opposed to Ford’s continuing presence in Damascus of verging on being pro-Assad:

I would say now, because he has become such a symbol of American support for the Syrian people, that it would actually be a defeat for the cause of freedom in Syria – and almost a victory for Assad – if we don’t confirm Robert Ford.

With tons of even neoconservatives — usually reliably hawkish on the Middle East and against diplomacy in countries considered U.S. adversaries — now coming out in favor of confirming Ford and allowing him to stay in Damascus to continue his work, one wonders how long the final holdouts like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and potentially others can cling to their obstructionist position on an up-or-down vote for the ambassador.

Last year, Senate Republicans refused to confirm Robert Ford as U.S. ambassador to Syria, claiming — in an purely ideological sense presumably — that sending a high-level American envoy to Damascus would “reward” the Assad regime for bad behavior. President Obama recess appointed Ford anyway, and his bold visit to Hama last July amid the Arab Spring inspired anti-regime demonstrations symbolized the importance of his presence there (see amateur video of Ford attending the wake of a Syrian activist killed by Syrian forces).

Yet conservatives still wanted Ford out of Damascus. Many argued that the White House should withdraw the American envoy in response to Bashar al Assad’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy activists there. However, the Obama administration, and even Ford himself, continued to make their case. “We owe it to them to remain supportive,” Ford said of the Syrians in his confirmation hearing last month. “Lower level diplomats are great, but they don’t carry the weight, they don’t carry the prestige of the president’s personal representative,” he told the Daily Caller this week.

However, some, like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who opposed Ford’s confirmation last year, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who called on Obama to recall Ford just last April, now see the wisdom in keeping him there. Now, the neocons are coming around too. Yesterday, Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy Initiative — a group that as recently as July was still calling on Ford to be recalled — said “the Senate should confirm him as soon as possible.” And today in the Los Angeles Times, fellow right-wing hawk Max Boot followed suit:

Our embattled man in Damascus, Ambassador Robert Ford, is threatened not only by the Syrian regime but by Republican senators who are dragging their feet on confirming his appointment. Their opposition, which is founded on the premise that we should not dignify Bashar Assad’s regime with an ambassador, is understandable but misguided. Ford has been a profile in courage in opposing Assad. [...]

It is possible that Ford may be expelled by the Syrian government in any case, but as long as he can stay in Damascus, he will support the demands of the protesters. The Senate should give him the opportunity to continue his valuable work.

It’s still unclear what Republicans in the Senate will do. Ford will be forced to come home if he is not confirmed by the end of the year. An aide to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) — who placed the hold on Ford’s nomination last year — signaled recently that he would do it again when his confirmation comes to a vote. Another Senate GOP aide told Foreign Policy, “You could potentially anticipate a number of senators putting holds on Ford.” But now that progressives and conservatives are speaking out with one voice calling for the Senate to keep Ford in Damascus, will Senate Republicans relent and make the right choice?