New York Times: Attack on Consulate in Libya was Terrorism, U.S. says.
Jennifer Rubin: Obama’s embassy cover story dissolves.
Michael Graham: If my teenage son said that, I would have sent him to his room.
I’m going to digress back to my early training as a chemical engineer. In college, we learned mass balances and energy balances: mass in = mass out, energy in = energy out, and in an adiabatic system, entropy will increase. You learn to drill down into the component parts and do the math, but you also work back up and make sure that the whole thing makes sense at the end.
Applying that to the attacks in the Middle East:
Input: a film made over the summer and seen by a few hundred people, tops.
Output: two almost simultaneous “protests” on U.S. embassies on 9/11, an ambassador dragged to his death, and insurgents who were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and the like.
You know what is less ridiculous than expecting us to believe that? “I put some lead and waste water into this factory, and gold, chocolate cakes, and dancing unicorns pop out the other side.”
The only thing that has been accomplished by blaming the film for multiple coordinated acts of terror is that we’ve been treated to ten days of “discussion” over whether or not the First Amendment should continue to exist in its current form.
This is not dissimilar to the nonsense we’ve seen with ObamaCare. The absurd claim was that we could give health care to another 50 million people by spending less money, and that there wouldn’t be a doctor shortage even though we have a doctor shortage that is only projected to get worse. Obviously, those claims are now known to be wrong, but they are known to be wrong two years after ObamaCare was passed.