The limits of objective truth

Barry Rubin writes:

Unintentionally, the mistakes of the Obama Administration has become a factor spreading the power of radical Islamist movements. People aren't going to like that sentence but it is objectively true. 

 

When Barry says that people won't like his sentence, I assume he means that people "aren't going to like" to admit a possibility that the Obama administration may be imperfect.  Granted, criticism of The Won is never welcome by his supporters and is more often than not met with bitter partisan rancor.

I have a different objection to the sentence, however, and it's this:  How in the world can Barry Rubin or any other pundit know the intentions of Barack Obama?  We can assume, we can imagine -one way or the other- but we cannot know.  The only thing that's "objectively true" is that radical Islamist movements are gaining power and influence, while the U.S. is losing power and influence.  Not one of us can know whether the Barack Obama we're seeing is making "mistakes" toward that end, or is actually, successfully, taking steps in a plan toward that end. 

Is there no skepticism left anywhere (outside the heartland of this country)?  I certainly don't claim to know Obama's intentions, but I am skeptical of the baseless assumption that they are for the good.  I think what we can say is that Obama couldn't be doing a better job of spreading the power of radical Islamist movements... if he tried.

I'm afraid we may never truly know the nature of his intentions; they are just as clouded now as they ever were [see also his birth certificate].  And this recent play-acting by the president and his state-run media, trying so desperately to assert that Obama somehow resembles Ronald Reagan, is incredibly absurd.  But it fits the pattern: Black is white, up is down, slavery is freedom, terrorists are good (Jews are bad) -- and now?  Barack Obama is the quintessential representation of American optimism, exceptionalism and patriotism.

 

Yeah, right.  Gd and Country all the way.

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

The key word, of course, is the word with which Rubin begins his sentence: "unintentionally." It is simply not possible for that word to be true. Are we to believe that after countless meetings and discussions with the State Department, the intelligence services, and his own coterie of advisors, the president just accidentally or inadvertently, without a shred of premeditation or forethought, stumbled on his present Middle East policy? That beggars belief -- and it requires that the reader assume that the president is no more sentient, no more mindful, than a robot gone haywire. If there's anything we can say with assurance about Barack Obama, it is that he is a canny operator and a shrewd politician -- not a man who conducts affairs of state heedlessly or absent-mindedly, nor a man who is sleepwalking his way through the presidency. This man knows what he is doing and he is doing what he knows. If his Egypt policy blows up, he will have to accept his share of the blame. Neither he nor his supporters will be able to plead "unintentionality."

[Tom Glennon]

I agree with Yeal's skepticism, as well as Mannie's analysis. Either we have "the smartest president evah", and the rise of Muslim extremism is the result of deliberate actions on Obama's part; or he is the least qualified president "evah", and the rise of extremism is due to his incompetency. Supporters and skeptics of Obama cannot have it any other way. He is what he is, but I am not sure which of these choices best describes him.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Tom, your second option is certainly a possibility. Maybe Obama INTENDED to do whatever was necessary to stop the spread of radical Islam but -- because of his bird-brained bumbling -- he UNINTENTIONALLY aided the spread of radical Islam. In other words, his methods fell woefully short of his motives. That could be the case, and -- for all I know -- it is the case; after all, I'm no more able than anyone else to get inside the guy's head. But every fiber of my intuition tells me he's not a bird-brained bumbler -- he's a crafty, cunning, and calculating man -- and if we underestimate him, we do so at our peril. He may be "the least qualified president evah" in terms of his experience, but he is not the least qualified evah in terms of his abilities. This is one savvy, street-smart guy -- and whatever he does, my strong hunch is: it's never the result of inadvertence or thoughtlessness.

[Gatehouse Academy Review]

There is also the really scary question of how this administration would handle a big, dangerous crisis in the region. If such were to take place, especially during the current period of its thinking, the United States could be in serious trouble.

[D]

Hi,I am 60 yo and have never witnessed what is going on before.You always had this pres and that pres and life would for the most part continue.There seems to be somthing very wrong about Obama that nobody can put their finger on.He is not inept by any means.Everything he does has a goal in mind.Class warfare,deep debt,any means possible to stop us from producing our own energy,which would mean more jobs,on and on.All you people that post are a lot smarter than I,but personally,I am very scared of what is happening to us.