Finally

Thom Shanker and Mark Landler have an article in The New York Times about Syria:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has confirmed that the Obama administration is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels in Syria’s civil war, although he said that no decisions had been made. “You look at and rethink all options,” Hagel said during a Pentagon news conference, after being asked whether the administration was reassessing its stance on providing weapons to the rebels. He was joined by his British counterpart, Philip Hammond, whose government was early among close American allies to identify the possible use of chemical weapons during the civil war.
Although Hagel was the first senior American official to officially describe the administration’s decision to reassess providing arms to the opposition fighters, he emphasized that the process “doesn’t mean you do or you will.” But he said that “arming the rebels— that’s an option.”
Both his tone and his body language indicated that the assessment process would be careful and deliberate. Pressed for his personal view, Hagel said that he had not decided. “Any country, any power, any international coalition, in partnership, is going to continue to look at options, how best to accomplish those objectives,” Hagel said.
Hammond said Britain was constrained from providing lethal assistance to the rebels under a European Union arms ban, although that prohibition expires in a few weeks. Both military leaders stressed that policy should focus on stopping the violence and helping Syria transition to a democracy.
Administration officials and American military leaders had previously focused public discussions on the many reasons not to arm the rebels, among them the failure to identify leaders who are committed to a unified, democratic Syria that respects minority rights, and the fear that American weapons could wind up in the hands of militants who might turn them against Western interests.
The debate over arming the rebels has resurfaced since the White House disclosed last week that the nation’s intelligence agencies believed that there had been small-scale use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. While supplying arms does not directly address the threat of chemical weapons, it would bolster the rebels in their fight against the regime. It would also be a way for the White House to look responsive, while waiting for more conclusive evidence of the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and without committing its own military to the conflict.
Another factor in the administration’s thinking, a senior official said, is its growing confidence in General Salim Idriss, the commander of the opposition’s Supreme Military Council. A German-trained former professor, General Idriss defected from the Syrian Army last summer. In recent weeks, General Idriss has impressed American officials with his moderate instincts, his commitment to inclusiveness, and his pledge to reject extremist elements like al-Nusra, an Islamist group that has links to al-Qaeda and has emerged as an effective fighting force.
Last fall, President Obama rejected a proposal to arm carefully vetted elements of the opposition that originated with David H. Petraeus, who was then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The proposal was supported by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hagel's predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, as well as by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey.
At the time, however, officials said Obama and his advisers believed that there was too high a risk of American weapons’ falling into the hands of unreliable or extremist elements. They said they worried in particular about weapons like shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, which could be used against Israeli commercial airliners.
Even if President Obama approves a plan to provide weapons, a senior administration official said, it would probably not include such weapons or antitank weapons, which the rebels have requested. The official stressed that the decision would build on existing commitments of nonlethal military equipment like body armor and night vision goggles. The United States has also pledged medicine and food rations, which it has just begun delivering.
Hammond said that British officials “remain increasingly concerned about the emerging evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and we demand that the regime allow the U.N. to investigate these allegations". He said that Assad “should be in no doubt that the world is watching, and will hold him and anyone else to account who is found responsible for the use of chemical weapons.” But Hammond recalled the faulty intelligence that led Britain to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq as reason to establish a legally credible chain of custody for evidence of past or future chemical attacks. Hammond said the Assad regime appeared “largely in control of its chemical weapons, principal chemical weapons sites”, but he warned that the international community was not able to account “for every last unit of chemical stocks” in Syria.

Rico says this is all well and good, but flying a few million dollars' worth of cruise missile into Assad's bedroom would speed up the process, and for less money...