The right and left are spinning over the latest Syria developments: is the president lucky/clueless or calculating/bold in the Russia-brokered chemical-weapons deal with Bashar al-Assad's regime?. Enter Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson with this statement after meeting with Obama:
"It is the threat of military force that has brought Assad to the point of considering international control of his chemical weapons. What Congress should do is authorize a request, if it comes to a vote, to back the president's use of limited, short-duration retaliation aimed at degrading Assad's chemical weapons capability and to deter him from using any of them again. Authorizing such a strike in Syria may also be enough to convince Assad he must surrender all his chemical weapons to international control and sign the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention outlawing their production, use and stockpiling. To ensure this happens, I believe a credible threat of American military force must remain on the table."
Meantime, Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (a no vote that cancels out Nelson's on a war resolution) was interviewed live in CNN shortly after the Russia deal was announced. He didn't have much to say that he hasn't said in the past (find what moderate rebels we could and try to arm them, bash Obama for not doing so sooner), and said he was still studying the matter.
Prediction: He'll weigh in soon (wild guess: FOX?) and fault the deal or the president. Consider: When Obama's administration was instrumental in deposing Libya's dictator, Rubio and some other Republicans went out of their way to give credit.... to the French and the British.