Not to put too fine a point on it, yet knowing President Polling is going to deliver a magnanimous prime-time speech in a few days, the Syrian conversation with Chuck Todd needs, or, well, deserves a little e-x-p-a-n-s-i-o-n.

Obama will give a speech to explain the United States’ "game plan" in the fight against #ISIS. http://t.co/HdZ7A9m4qZ pic.twitter.com/zwe45HazQY

— CNN International (@cnni) September 8, 2014

During a rather revealing part of the interview between Chuck Todd and President Obama the specific issue of Syria came up surrounding ISIS.   Viewers should note in the entire dialogue it was not Obama who brought up Syria, it was Chuck Todd. (Video @9:20)
Mr. Todd even seemed a little perplexed with having to do it; albeit reluctantly, as if he knew he needed to. If Chuck Todd’s new role on MTP is to attempt credibility retention he held no choice, he had to bring up the geography.  Todd specifically needed to ask, because Dear Leader avoided mentioning Syria throughout the previous ten minutes:

@09:25 President Obama: “the boots on the ground have to be Syrian”.
Chuck Todd interjects “but WHO”?
President Obama has publicly committed himself to the removal of Syrian head Basher Assad.  His public proclamations to Assad’s removal make getting cooperation from the Syrian National Army a little disingenuous amid the option scale.
Additionally we know the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is little more than a corrupted fractured contingent of ne’er-do-wells, most of which defected to join ISIS.  And then we have Dear Leader’s previous statements saying to the New York Times’ Tom Freidman it is “fantasy” to think “an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth” could battle “a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, [and] a battle-hardened Hezbollah.”
So naturally Chuck Todd had to ask the question: Whose boots does Obama plan on supporting?
To wit POTUS puts three groups on the table: The Syrian national army, ISIS, and some weirdly defined “Moderate Opposition” – and then says we should support the moderate opposition who are “pinched between the Syrian Army and ISIS“.

STOP  

{{Insert Scratching Record Sound}}}

Let’s just imagine a REAL REPORTER was sitting in that seat across from POTUS.

Let’s back up the President Obama ‘Logic-O-Meter’ a minute.
This perplexing “situation” being described in Syria has a historical mirror image, Egypt.
In the mirror comparison you can easily take out the name President Assad (Syria) and replace with President Mubarak (Egypt). Similarly you can replace ‘ISIS’ (Syria) in any comparative sentence with ‘The Muslim Brotherhood’ (Egypt). Additionally you can further replace “moderate opposition” with the Egyptian General Fatah El Sisi.
It is not parsing subject or syntax to say these are virtually identical and synonymous contrasts.

Leaders: EGYPT, Hosni Mubarak – SYRIA, Bashar Al Assad
Radical element: EGYPT, Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi – SYRIA, ISIS and Bakr al Baghdadi.
Moderate(s): EGYPT, Fatah El SiSi – SYRIA (former FSA, now exiles)

While the horrific Muslim Brotherhood crucifixions were not broadcast on CNN, they took place within Egypt as they have within Syria. While the slaughter of Coptic Christians was not broadcast on CNN, they took place with a similar extreme prejudice inside Egypt as they have within Syria.
So now evaluate the “moderate” solution.
Into this comparison we must remember the action of President Obama.
The U.S. administration fully supported the Muslim Brotherhood and their guy Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. Indeed the White House team was factually angry when the “moderate” Egyptian forces overthrew the Brotherhood and put Fatah el-Sisi in charge.
No media will ever call Dear Leader out on this comparison, yet the comparison still exists regardless of discomfort.
So how is President Obama going to parse support for a now non-existent Syrian “moderate element”, when his administration had openly supported a radical Morsi Islamist element within Egypt?
If consistency, instead of polling winds, was a valued currency to this administration President Obama would be supporting ISIS just as he supported the Muslim Brotherhood.
Indeed, we would argue that regardless of Obama being on the wrong side of Egyptian history, the fact remains he openly supported the radical Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. He can try to re-write history, but he cannot avoid it.
The same radical elements, the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), he is now claiming to want to defeated, deconstructed and “followed to the gates of hell”, is the exact same group of ideological Islamists Obama previously supported in Egypt under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood.
President Obama had no trouble supporting Mohamed Morsi who: deconstructed the Egyptian constitution, disbanded Egyptian courts and judges, instituted sharia governance, killed hundreds of Coptic Christians and crucified people in front of his Cairo palace.
Yet somehow, now that a few American journalists have joined the headless ranks of the Copt’s – he’s found some form of, well, moral something or other?
President Polling wants to support a “moderate Syrian element” against radicals, yet refused to support a “moderate Egyptian element” against similar radicals.
Because of Obama’s insufferable willingness to support the Muslim Brotherhood President Obama is hated, HATED, I mean HATED, within Egypt.



Not only hated, but factually and reasonably distrusted by over 80% of the Egyptian people.
Yet POTUS is somehow positioned to form a moral “coalition” to lead a charge against ISIS – and he’s going to go on the TeeVee Wednesday to tell us all about his magnanimous plans.
I wonder if CNNi will broadcast Wednesday in Libya ?

Oh how I wish someone, anyone, would sit in that seat of Chuck Todd -for just 5 minutes- and pose that specific contrast in the form of a question to President Obama.
Alas…