Last year, President Obama recess appointed career diplomat Robert Ford to be U.S. ambassador to Syria after Senate Republicans refused to confirm him to the post. Republicans claimed that sending an envoy to Damascus would be rewarding bad behavior. Now that Ford has shown the merits of a high-level U.S. presence in Syria, particularly since the pro-democracy uprisings there, some who opposed Ford’s confirmation have changed their minds. Yet the Washington Post reported last week that a Senate GOP aid said some Republican senators will probably place a hold on Ford’s confirmation (his recess appointment expires at the end of the year).

In an interview with the Daily Caller, Ford urged these senators to reconsider:

Also significant, Ford said, is his presence as a personal representative of the American president, which is why he says it is imperative the Senate officially confirm him.

“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 explained.

Ford also expanded on the nature of the Syrian opposition. “I’m sorta amazed that they’re not fucking crazy,” he said, adding that it’s likely that any government that emerges in a post-Assad era will be a secular one:

“My own sense is, from my own discussion with Syrians, is that the Islamist element is actually not very strong in this country,” he argued. “The Muslim Brotherhood is pretty much stamped out by Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad. And so most of the Islamists that are active politically are outside of Syria.”

“I think the internal opposition, there are absolutely Islamists among them,” he continued. “When you look at the street protests, they are on Fridays, so there is probably an element of people being in mosques and then going to the protests, but there are plenty of people who don’t go to the mosques but are also marching… It is a pluralistic kind of opposition.”

Ford also said that while demonstrators welcomed him when he traveled to Hama in July to join them in “solidarity,” they aren’t necessarily waving American flags. Why not? The invasion of Iraq and baggage from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “I will be honest with you, the reputation of the United States after Iraq and after our policies with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, a lot of Syrians look at us with very mixed emotions,” he said.

The New York Times reported this week that the Obama administration is leaving Ford in Damascus “so he can maintain contact with opposition leaders and the leaders of the country’s myriad sects and religious groups” in order to avoid chaos in the event of the fall of dictator Bashar Al-Assad.

Checkpoint Washington reports that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s nomination today on a voice vote. His confirmation is now awaiting final approval on a full Senate vote. President Obama recess appointed Ford last year after Republicans blocked his nomination, claiming that sending an ambassador to Damascus — a spot that had been vacant since 2005 — would be a reward to Bashar al-Assad’s regime for bad behavior.

Some senators, like Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), originally opposed Ford’s confirmation last year, but many are now in support (Rubio as recently as April called on Obama to recall Ford as a response to Assad’s violent crackdown on the pro-democracy movement there). Indeed, one GOP aide actually admitted that Ford has been doing great work in Syria, but some Republicans will most likely put a hold on his confirmation anyway:

“Most people don’t have a problem with Ford specifically. He actually is pretty good,” said one Republican staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss deliberations among Republicans. “There’s been a deeper question of the administration’s having a clear, consistent, coherent policy on Syria.”

“That’s really what’s driving the concern of a lot of senators on the Hill,” the staffer said. “I think, from that perspective, you could potentially anticipate a number of senators putting holds on Ford.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually laid out the administration’s policy fairly clearly last month when she announced that Assad should step down and that the U.S. would impose sanctions on Syria. “We understand the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle and we respect their wishes,” Clinton said then. Perhaps that’s what’s irking these Republican hold outs so much: that the U.S. won’t attack Syria.

Testifying to save his job weeks before Clinton’s announcement, Ford told the Senate, “I think we owe it to [Syrian pro-democracy activists] to remain supportive and it try to build that support wisely, carefully but to build that support.”

Last year, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), “acting on his party’s behalf,” blocked Robert Ford’s confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to Syria. While President Obama ended up using his power to recess appoint Ford to the position, in a May 14, 2010 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, twelve Senate Republicans complained that sending an envoy rewarded Syria for its support for terrorism.

The Senate still must confirm Ford if he is to remain at his post. His visit last month to the Syrian city of Hama — which has recently been under assault by the Syrian military — drew wide praise. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who opposed Ford’s confirmation last year, now says he supports it and he is urging his colleagues to follow suit. And as The Cable reported yesterday, “Congress is warming to the idea of confirming” Ford. Or is it?

A Coburn aide told ThinkProgress that the Oklahoma senator “continues to stand by the concerns outlined” in the May, 2010 letter to Clinton. Moreover, the same aide did not respond to repeated inquiries into whether that statement meant Coburn still opposes having Ford as U.S. ambassador or that he will again block his confirmation. ThinkProgress also contacted most of the Republicans that co-signed the letter to Clinton asking if they still oppose sending Ford, or any other envoy, to Syria and none responded.

Giving some insight into the GOP’s thinking, the Cable reported that “[s]ome on Capitol Hill don’t like the optics of the United States confirming an ambassador to Syria while other countries withdraw their envoys as a means of registering their opposition to Assad’s crackdown”:

“Senator Lieberman is one of the great national security leaders of this generation, and Robert Ford is a skilled diplomat, but it makes no sense to have an American ambassador in Damascus now,” one senior GOP congressional aide told The Cable. “It’s a sad day when the Saudi king has greater moral clarity than the president of the United States.”

While it’s unclear how exactly having an ambassador in Syria means President Obama lacks “moral clarity,” the neocons at the Foreign Policy Initiative offered a similarly confusing explanation as to why Ford should be recalled. “It is doubtful that, if confirmed by the Senate, Ford will be allowed by the Assad regime to be an effective voice for the United States,” FPI executive director Jamie Fly wrote yesterday, adding, “unless the administration is prepared to use Ford as a proactive envoy to the Syrian people, the White House should seriously consider keeping him in Washington.”

But as evidenced by his visit to Hama, and his Senate testimony last week, Ford is already a “proactive envoy to the Syrian people.” Ford is not there to be “an effective voice for the United States,” as Fly said. As Ford said last month, “This is not about Americans, it is about the way the Syrian government mistreats its own people.” And he told the Senate last week, “It’s really important now to give Syrians an ear and to amplify their voices especially when the international media is barred from Syria.”

Last year, President Obama used his recess appointment power to install Robert Ford as the U.S. ambassador to Syria after Republicans blocked Ford’s confirmation because they thought that by sending an envoy to Damascus, the president was rewarding Syrian support for terrorism.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also opposed sending Ford to Syria. “I felt that dispatching an ambassador to Damascus would be a mistake given [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad’s failure to alter any of his outrageous policies,” Lieberman writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. But now, Lieberman has changed his mind and is calling on the Senate to finally confirm Ford. He explains why:

Rather than being an envoy to Assad, Mr. Ford is now first and foremost our ambassador to the Syrian people and a bridge to the democratic transition they demand. This is a role for which Mr. Ford—an innovative and tough diplomat with extensive experience in the Middle East—is uniquely well-suited.

The ambassador’s important and powerful visit last month to the city of Hama — where peaceful protesters had seized control, but where Syrian forces now are engaged in a gruesome campaign of violence — was an example of the kind of forward-leaning, gutsy diplomacy that our Syria policy now needs. It was also a powerful reminder that, while we cannot dictate the outcome of the struggle in Syria, U.S. leadership is pivotal –and Amb. Ford provided it.

Indeed, Ford told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that he needs to be in Syria for exactly the reason that Lieberman laid out. “It’s really important now to give Syrians an ear and to amplify their voices especially when the international media is barred from Syria,” he said, adding, “I think we owe it to them to remain supportive and it try to build that support wisely.” U.S. officials said Ford’s contacts there are “the most important sources of information in assessing the Syrian scene.”

Ford has drawn wide praise from analysts here in the U.S., and even from the Syrian pro-democracy activists themselves, for his dramatic visit to Hama last month. And like Lieberman, it has caused some to rethink their view that the United States should not have an ambassador in Syria. Yet the neocons remain unconvinced. Last month, the Foreign Policy Initiative called on Obama to recall Ford from Damascus.

Neocons don’t like that the United States has an ambassador in Syria. Last year, Republican hawks blocked Robert Ford’s nomination to represent the U.S. in Damascus. But President Obama installed him in a recess appointment and Ford’s presence there during the pro-democracy uprising has been “impressive” — particularly his visit to Hama last month, where Syrian activists welcomed him with open arms. Nonetheless, Republicans and neocons aren’t giving up and still want him pulled anyway.

Ford is in Washington this week for his confirmation hearings and testified yesterday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell and Josh Rogin wrote before the hearing that Ford “will face a panel of Republican senators…who are eager to criticize what they see as the administration’s timidity in Syria.” Yet none showed up. In fact, one single senator, Democrat Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, had questions for Ford.

During the hearing, Ford stressed how important his presence in Syria is because he provides “more space for the Syrian people to express themselves” and works with the Syrian opposition. “It’s really important now to give Syrians an ear and to amplify their voices especially when the international media is barred from Syria,” he said. Later, he described his visit to Hama — which he described as one of the most “fascinating” experiences of his career — and reiterated how vital his role in Syria is:

FORD: First of all the protesters there are peaceful. As I think I mentioned, the one weapon I saw a slingshot. As I said these men are not gunmen. … But the second point I came with was, they are not against foreigners. We told them we were American diplomats and they said, “Oh! America! Great! Go ahead! Please pass!” … They’re not anti-American at all. In fact I think they appreciated the attention that the United States showed to their cause and that they were peaceful.

But the people in Hama and elsewhere are quite committed to change and I don’t think they’re going to stop. And so I think we owe it to them to remain supportive and it try to build that support wisely, carefully but to build that support.

Watch it:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has sharply criticized Obama on Syria and has called on him to withdraw Ford from Damascus. “I don’t understand their Syria policy,” he told Rogin yesterday, adding, “I wish there was a little more clarity on it, I’m sorry there isn’t.” Yet Rubio did not show up to hear Ford’s testimony or to ask him questions about the administration’s policy.

Republicans and neocons who had either previously called on the Obama administration to recall U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford or tried to block his confirmation as ambassador have been fairly quiet since Ford’s bold move to join protesters in the Syrian city of Hama to demonstrate against the Assad regime. Ford’s move won wide praise from analysts here in the U.S., and even from the Syrian pro-democracy activists themselves.

Not only has Ford seemed to embolden the anti-Assad movement in Syria, but Ford himself and senior Obama administration officials have said his presence there gleans valuable information, as Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch reported:

Ford’s conversations were one of their most important sources of information in assessing the Syrian scene. This is one key reason why they considered his presence essential even before his electrifying visit to Hama persuaded most of their critics of his value.

Yet the neocons at the Bill Kristol-led Foreign Policy Initiative (formerly Iraq war cheerleading outfit the Project for a New American Century) aren’t satisfied with Ford’s work. In fact, they still want him recalled. In a “Fact Sheet” released yesterday on “Five Steps to Hasten Assad’s Exit,” FPI acknowledged Ford’s “praiseworthy” trip to Hama, but still called on Obama to withdraw him anyway:

President Obama should recall the U.S. Ambassador to Syria — unless the administration is willing to use him as a proactive and public advocate for the Syrian people in their struggle against Assad. Notwithstanding Ambassador Robert Ford’s praiseworthy visit to Hama on July 8, 2011, the continued presence of a U.S. envoy in Damascus lends legitimacy to the Assad regime.

While FPI doesn’t specify what “a proactive and public advocate for the Syrian people” means outside of what Ford has already been doing, later in the “Fact Sheet,” the organization seems to set some fairly high expectations for engaging Syria:

Despite the Obama administration’s strategy of engagement with Syria, Assad has not renounced his support of terrorism, and his regime’s barbaric campaign against peaceful protesters demonstrates that its sole interest is to maintain power.

Perhaps FPI doesn’t understand how diplomacy and engagement work because Ford’s role as ambassador to Syria, particularly during the uprising, isn’t to bring down Assad. As Ford told Lynch, “This is not about Americans,” he said, adding, “It’s not an American decision [to make political demands]. What we will not do is to claim to speak for them. They are capable of speaking for themselves.”

U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford recently made news when he traveled to the Syrian city of Hama and joined anti-government demonstrators in a protest against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Syrian activists welcomed Ford and thanked him for his display of solidarity. One Syria expert here in the U.S. called Ford’s move “impressive” and a “significant statement.”

But all this may not have happened if many Republicans had their way. GOPers such as Marco Rubio and Tim Pawlenty were calling on President Obama to recall Ambassador Ford in the wake of the government’s violent crackdown. And on top that, the U.S. would not have an envoy in Syria at all if the Republicans in the Senate got what they wanted. Last year, Senate GOPers refused to confirm Ford because they saw sending an ambassador to Syria as a “reward” for bad behavior.

Indeed, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently countered Republicans calling for Ford’s recall, saying his presence there is “useful.” And there’s at least one person who agrees with that: Robert Ford himself. Over at Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch writes than in an interview, Ford “dismissed” the idea that he has not been able to engage with Syrians:

Ford dismissed the idea that prior to Hama he had been a captive in his Embassy, unable to engage with anyone. Quite the contrary. He has had access to both the Syrian government and to key sectors of Syrian society such as the business community. The threat of violent retaliation and intimidation of Syrians who meet with American officials is real, though, and he acknowledged that some had refused invitations out of this fear. Senior administration officials have told me several times in other conversations that Ford’s conversations were one of their most important sources of information in assessing the Syrian scene. This is one key reason why they considered his presence essential even before his electrifying visit to Hama persuaded most of their critics of his value.

Ford also told Lynch he can expect more Hama-like visits across Syria. “He plans to take further trips around the country, to continue to meet with as many Syrians as he can, and to push to open political space and to restrain regime violence,” Lynch writes. And Ford doesn’t seem to want to back down. “I’m not going to stop the things I do,” he said. “I can’t. The President has issued very clear guidance. It’s morally the right thing to do.”

And Ford has high regard for those challenging Assad. “I’ve met enough of them, and believe me, they are a lot tougher than anyone in the Washington Post or the U.S. Senate. They know exactly what they are doing,” he said.

But it’s unclear how much longer Ford can be in Syria representing the United States. The Washington Post noted this week that unless the Senate officially approves his post, Ford will be forced to leave Syria at the end of the year. But that might require Senate Republicans to admit that perhaps they were wrong. It is possible, however. As Brookings Middle East expert Shadi Hamid tweeted yesterday, “I previously said Obama admin should recall the US ambassador in #Syria. I was wrong.”

U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford traveled to the Syrian city of Hama last week “as a show of solidarity” with residents speaking out against Bashar al-Assad’s oppressive rule. Ford even joined a crowd of demonstrators protesting Assad’s regime on Friday and video shows Syrian activists welcoming him with roses and olive branches. One activist said he “felt protected” by Ford’s presence because the Syrian military wouldn’t fire on crowds with Western officials in attendance. “Thank u Mr. Ford, US Ambassador, in Hama among the protesters, and welcomed with flowers,” another Syrian activist said on Twitter.

For weeks, Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty have been attacking President Obama for not doing enough in Syria, saying that he should pull Ford out of Syria. “Words must be backed by clear, firm actions,” Rubio said, “we should now sever ties and recall the ambassador at once.” But if Republicans had their way, Ford never would have even made it to Syria. As Laura Rozen notes, Senate Republicans last year refused to confirm Ford, and several other ambassadors the President nominated, and Obama was forced to issue recess appointments.

Indeed, on May 14, 2010, twelve GOP senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioning the wisdom of sending an envoy to Damascus:

We are writing you to express our deep concern about the ongoing Syrian support for terrorism. … If engagement precludes prompt punitive action in response to egregious behavior, such as the transfer of long range missiles to a terrorist group, then it is not only a concession but also a reward for such behavior.

One official called Ford’s visit to Hama “gutsy,” and the move reportedly “was endorsed by the highest levels of the Obama administration.” Washington Institute for Near East Policy Syria expert David Schenker called Ford’s visit “impressive.” While Schenker said that Washington should be more vocal in support of Syria’s democracy movement, he told the Voice of America:

It is a significant statement for him to go to Hama and seemingly cast his lot, and the American lot, with the people of Syria, to provide some protection for the people of Hama, and to demonstrate where the United States’ sympathies and policies lie.

Rozen notes that Clinton criticized the notion of not talking to adversaries. “Diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends,” she said.

“Having an ambassador in Syria has allowed us to be in Syria,” White House spokesperson Jay Carney said recently, adding, “I think that has been a useful avenue for us to pursue in terms of communicating our points of view.” But as Israel Policy Forum’s David Halperin said of the GOP’s plans to block Obama’s ambassador appointments, “Republicans think that U.S. interests are better advanced by not showing up.”