Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

but Spence, if a left wing group produces a video depicting Tea Party members in all sorts compromising and unsavory acts and members of a Tea Party group get offended and ransack a DNC office...maybe kill a few people...are you willing to blame the video and would you want the video makers jailed? will it perplex you if people blame the video and makers rather than the Tea Party members for the damage and death?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? irrelevant Why wasn't it well planned? irrelevant Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation? irrelevant

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before?

Are you serious? "They" have and were attacking "in scale" well before the video.

Why wasn't it well planned?

Ok. This is still getting confusing and in the mode of constant change. Is the current thinking-investigation-talking point-whatever that it was not well planned? And what does well planned mean? Planned but not well? Not planned at all? Even though they were "itching" to attack? Hey--if they were itching to attack, and 9/11 just popped up unexpectedly, not giving them time to plan an attack, couldn't they "spontaneously" make an unplanned attack even if the video didn't exist? Was the video necessary to make it spontaneous? And if the video was necessary, how spontaneous is that. The video was (erroneously) blamed for previous attacks elsewhere. Then how would it be "spontaneous" if it was the cause of a chain of previous attacks? Seems, in that case, it would just be more of an expected reaction.

Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

I could think of several reasons, including covering up senseless killing and mayhem by providing a "reason" to justify it. Lying is often use to cover up mistakes or evil.

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

The video is, obviously, not out of the equation. Or, more accurately, out of various equations, only one of which can be true--except in a relative world, in which case all things are true and what would be the point of arguing about it?

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.

Which puts in question what is the purpose of putting the video into the equation? It could be used to facilitate a circumstance that would occur wthout the use of it. Just as all evil will be justified by some excuse to make it appear as good. Or to cover up that which incriminates.

If the video was used, it was obviously done so to somehow make sensible, excuse, what otherwise might be seen by the world as senseless violence (even though, to the attackers ,it was not senseless without the video), or as a cover-up for the incompetence in not preventing the attack.

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

[Doover]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

Jeepers? That video only had a handful of hits up until the night of the attack.
That video, AFTER the Administration viewed it and settled on it and THEN presented it to the World as the cause of the deadly Benghazi attack, then had MANY views.

Why has there been no OTHER attacks on OUR interests related to THIS video?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.

[Sea Dangles]

Oh, did Jim just say he knows he is right again??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Sort of like how the story of the drone hit on the Dr w/o Borders changed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sort of like how the story of the drone hit on the Dr w/o Borders changed.

Totally different scenario. The GOP isn't trying to destroy the credibility of the US Military.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Totally different scenario. The GOP isn't trying to destroy the credibility of the US Military.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

True, we have to concede that the GOP is out to get her.

That aside. Spence, why didn't she just say "we are trying to figure it out, it's a fluid situation at the moment"?

Can you support your claim that every time she flip-flopped, it's because there was another intelligence report that said "forget what we told you 5 minutes ago, we changed our mind, now we think it was caused by _____".

I'll call her FCOTUS, that's the closest I can get. And I don't know that she's beatable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That aside. Spence, why didn't she just say "we are trying to figure it out, it's a fluid situation at the moment"?

I think there's a lot of public pressure to get as much information out as possible, which is why the official statements did tend to have a qualifier. Even Rice's often touted remarks were not stated as absolute and final.

Can you support your claim that every time she flip-flopped, it's because there was another intelligence report that said "forget what we told you 5 minutes ago, we changed our mind, now we think it was caused by _____".

If you look at the CIA testimony and how the information evolved and the timeline compared to Administration remarks it does align pretty well.

This was all laid out in detail during the bi-partisan majority findings of the Senate investigation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

"Mrs. President." Is that a Freudian slip? Wasn't she sort of a Mrs. President for Bill when he was President? I think the more standard formal title would be Madam President. Or that would have been so before gender expansion and required normalization. Both Mrs. and Madam are "sexist"--as well as being too restrictive to differentiate between the number of genders now existing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Mrs. President." Is that a Freudian slip? Wasn't she sort of a Mrs. President for Bill when he was President? I think the more standard formal title would be Madam President. Or that would have been so before gender expansion and required normalization. Both Mrs. and Madam are "sexist"--as well as being too restrictive to differentiate between the number of genders now existing.

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode

You love him that much, do you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode

I think she'd be a big improvement over the incumbent...and Bill would be an even bigger improvement as First Spouse, compared to the angry, entitled, spoiled brat we have now.

At this point, I'd love to see all republicans stop voting. Give liberals the reins to take over everything completely, so that when the inevitable happens, we all are forced to concede (everyone except you, at least) that liberalism doesn't work. You'll be the last holdout.

Spence, if liberal economics has any validity to it...why is CT in the shape it's in? Or Mass, Illinois, you name it? Is it because they aren't liberal enough? Are taxes still way too low? Are houses too cheap? Is it that we haven't been generous enough to public labor unions? I'd be genuinely curious to hear your take on that. Especially as regards CT, which ought to be the best state in the union - lots of educated folks, high average salaries, beautiful state. Yet thanks precisely to the agenda you embrace, it's almost impossible to be middle class here, the cost of living is crushing, our debt is going to cause incomprehensible damage, and we are one of the VERY few states that are losing population.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode

Inmate # 43678 has an even better ring to it...

President Trump and Vice President Palin have full permission to go wild with Executive Orders and the Republican Congress may engage in any legislative Tom Foolery that they might invent on the fly in order to pass their agenda items.... so that we may watch your head explode be careful what you support, condone and wish for...payback can be a beeotch

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

Now UUUU RRRRR hitting below the belt....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That depends on the context of what the current thinking was when the email was sent.

The context of whose current thinking? There were various contexts of current thinking. Pick and choose the one which best suits your "current" thinkings at various contexts of time? Oh, the preferred current thinking at this moment of the day is planned terrorist attack nothing to do with the video--oh, oh, might better go with the more preferred current thinking at this later moment of the day being video had something to do with attack . . . Oh, uh, better go public with the context which emphasizes the video. . . oh, better to slant both ways . . . be definitive sounding but vague enough to have plausible deniability.

What a jumbled mess of gibberish.

I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.[/QUOTE]

The reported state of intelligence was conflicting at various times. It was later resolved into a more coherent state which crystalized the perception of the attack as planned and coordinated by al Qaeda affiliates, not a spontaneous protest because of the video--which seemed, ironically, to be its initial perception, if we are to believe Hillary's first "context of current thinking."

And the formal investigation, which you cling to, the Senate committee report on Benghazi, found State Dept. extremely culpable for lack of security for the compound. It blistered the State Dept. for not providing proper security even though violence was on the rise there--violence, much not connected to the video but which began preceding it and connected to other issues dear to the organized al Qaeda terrorists.

"The committee found the attacks were preventable based on extensive intelligence reporting on terrorist activity in Libya-- to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets--and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. mission."

The report which you cling to did not have the information now available because the administration and its Secretary of State withheld it, only to dribble it out much later, bit by inadequate bit, and still not entirely forthcoming.

So the Report was wrong in its assessment that the attack appeared not to be planned. It was wrong about the significance of the video, and, ultimately, in my opinion, on placing the blame on underlings rather than the boss. You have said that it was a systemic problem, which Hillary, after the attack and too late, was going to fix. Wasn't Hillary part of the system? The leading part?

And isn't it peculiar that the CIA, which seems to have been giving conflicting and erroneous reports (gee, haven't we heard that criticism of the CIA even before Benghazi) bolstered its security at its compound only a mile away, but State did not do so for the embassy compound? Sure, blame it on Chris Stevens who turned down offers from General Ham, or on some other underling, even though hundreds of requests for more security were given--just, reputedly, never got to Hillary. It seems, from this picture, that Hillary as a Sec. State was being so in fundamentally disconnected name only. She is portrayed as the head of something that goes about its business without regard to her, she being a mere functionary who can be replaced by another without consequence. If it does well, she gets the credit. If it effs up, she "takes responsibility" but not the blame.

But she would fix the "systemic problem" by finally becoming an active part of the system. She would become truly the head of the organization, delve into its workings and fix its problems--which is what the head of most, at least non-political, organizations, are expected to do before crises happen, not after, which is why they are paid so much and should be fired or downgraded or replaced, not promoted to higher levels when things go wrong. But then, in the big corporate world, which Hillary purports also to want to fix, the same insane reward for failure is often seen.

So what was Hillary's role in the Benghazi tragedy. She would take responsibility, but not the blame. She would root out the cause and exact the cures and justice. Granted, even though "the contexts of current thinking" were supposedly rapidly shifting back and forth from two scenarios (not correctly so, if even true) she would, according to Spence, "look" for ways to prosecute the video maker. Even though his video did not violate the law.

Why would she do something so despotic? OK . . . OK, I know that Progressives do have a despotic mindset. But this is almost too egregious, even for a Progressive. Perhaps there is a broader context of thinking which is more current than day to day, but is a fact in History. Mind you, She is so good at deflecting, obfuscating, dodging questions, filibustering to fill up "current contexts" of time-restricted investigations as in her just concluded appearance before Congress, that she appears (to those who want her to appear so) . . . as Presidential. There has been this context of thinking that has been current for many years about her. She has been grooming herself for over a decade to appear Presidential. It was laughably ironic when Spence tried to put down Cruz for grandstanding in order to put himself in the potential limelight of being a Presidential candidate. But Hillary's grandstanding is just peachy with Spence. Even in spite of (or because of) all the lying and manipulation, her grandstanding is "Presidential." We should begin referring to her as Mrs. President.

So why would she promise to do something as psychopathically despotic as trying to criminally prosecute someone for a crime he has not committed? What is the fact in history which could shift the "current context of thinking" about her regarding responsibility for Benghazi, or regarding her being Presidential?

Who is ultimately responsible for the presence of al Qaeda affiliates who were terrorizing Libya and who killed the four Americans at the Benghazi compound? Was the video responsible for all that, and for the chaos, terror, killing, occurring in Libya now. Who steered the administration into deposing Qaddafi? Qaddafi warned what would happen if he was eliminated, which is what is happening now.

Hillary did that.

She was so enamored of the idea of an Arab Spring. But was so ignorant of Arab Consequence. George Bush was discredited as stupid, incompetent, even a war criminal, for toppling Saddam.

Better to blame it all on a video and "systemic failure" and bad intel, certainly not on policy failure as advised in an administration internal memo--and Presidentially go after the video maker. It would not be Presidential to look like a Clinton in Bush clothing.

[spence]

Jim, all your questions have been answered over and over and over and over...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, all your questions have been answered over and over and over and over...

No, they haven't. You are assuming that every time she changed her tune, it was in response to a new conclusion from intelligence.

Have there been any confirmed intelligence reports, that told her "look, we know what we said yesterday, but we were wrong, so now we want you to say this.."

Here is a questoion for which I have not seen the answer. If it has been answered, please share. Here goes...if half the reports were blaming the video, and half said it was planned, shouldn't she have said "we are getting conflicting reports, we are looking into what happened"?

Why didn't she do that? Because the statements I have seen attributed to her, aren't very ambiguous. In public, she seems certain it was a spontaneous response to a video, and by an amazing coincidence, that means she can't be held accountable for not preventing it.

Spence, I admit I cannot stand the woman, and may not be looking at this with a completely objective eye (though I try, as when I say I don't think she's personally responsible for every bad decision made by everyone who works for her). But what you will never admit, is that you are so blinded by ideology, that you will never fault her for anything, ever.

If I can see a timeline of what reports she got when, and how those coincide with her changing stories, then it's POSSIBLE that every one of her flip-flopping claims was based exactly on the most recent report. And that would not be her fault. But it's extremely unlikely that was the case.

It's not like she always blamed the video up to a certain date, and then said it was a planned attack. She kept flip-flopping. The commonality, is the audience she was speaking to. In private, she admitted it was a planned attack, nothing to do with the video. In public, she said it was a spontaneous reaction to the video, therefore nothing she could have foreseen, therefore not her fault.

Coindicence? Possible. Highly unlikely.

[spence]

Jim, you really should read the Senate Intelligence and House Select reports from 2014.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you really should read the Senate Intelligence and House Select reports from 2014.

I did. And nowhere, can I find conflicting reports that coincide precisely with her flip-flopping.

Why can't you post the data that supports what you are saying?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I did. And nowhere, can I find conflicting reports that coincide precisely with her flip-flopping.

Why can't you post the data that supports what you are saying?

Originally Posted by spence
"I see, so it's just because you say so. Right."

he projects a lot.....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

No I am not making such an assumption. I am assuming that if we set up a system of verbal equations re attacks by al Qaeda, each with combinations of different known or assumed causes on the left hand side of the equations, but each with the same known constant result on the right hand side=an attack by al Qaeda--and there was included a constant variable in all the left hand sides of the equations but the other causative variables differed from equation to equation, were not constant, then the constant one could be assumed to be the basic and necessary cause. The others being peripheral, or not even true.

The video would be an assumed variable in very few of the known al Qaeda attacks. Ergo, assuming the constant variable was necessary to all of al Qaeda attacks, the video does not have to be considered as a reason for the Benghazi attack. It would not be necessary for the attack to occur. And wouldn't have to be considered a "veracity" as a reason for the attack, even if some of the participants said it was. They haven't been vetted. We don't know if they were truthful. Or even if they really exist. If they do, and if they were ginned up to it by al Qaeda operatives, they would be more tools in the attack rather than merely spontaneous let's have a party and go kill Americans because of a video we were told about (by al Qaeda operatives) types. But the video can fit into an equation which explores not actual reasons for the attack, but cosmetic justifications for it.

It can be used as lipstick on a pig. The pig being a brutal massacre of not only innocent beings, but those who, as you claim, are loved and supported by the Libyan people. Or the pig being failed policy which made possible the massacre.

And I still wonder what you think about Hillary's promise to prosecute the video maker as a result of something that is not illegal. Or about Hillary's role in creating a vacuum for "extremists" by her recommendation to remove Qaddafi--which created vastly more of a condition for the Benghazi massacre than the video could. And how she is any better than Bush was in his removal of Saddam.

[scottw]

if you replace the video with some other source of blame...like the anniversary of 9/11....some guy drawing a cartoon somewhere....a guy in Texas burning a stack of Korans.....

would Hillary then have told the families of the victims she was going to arrest those responsible for the deaths?....which would be who? the folks that brought you 9/11??...a cartoonist??.....a guy burning Korans on the other side of the planet??

and would the administration and willing media the push those stories in order to deflect .......oh probably

future terrorist attackers should blame George Bush as the motivation for their actions and then we can enjoy the spectacle of President Shillary announcing that she's going to track down and jail the person responsible for the "tragedy"...George Bush....and that would just please a bunch of leftists to no end and probably make sense to them too...

bizarro world....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No I am not making such an assumption. I am assuming that if we set up a system of verbal equations re attacks by al Qaeda, each with combinations of different known or assumed causes on the left hand side of the equations, but each with the same known constant result on the right hand side=an attack by al Qaeda--and there was included a constant variable in all the left hand sides of the equations but the other causative variables differed from equation to equation, were not constant, then the constant one could be assumed to be the basic and necessary cause. The others being peripheral, or not even true.

The video would be an assumed variable in very few of the known al Qaeda attacks. Ergo, assuming the constant variable was necessary to all of al Qaeda attacks, the video does not have to be considered as a reason for the Benghazi attack. It would not be necessary for the attack to occur. And wouldn't have to be considered a "veracity" as a reason for the attack, even if some of the participants said it was. They haven't been vetted. We don't know if they were truthful. Or even if they really exist. If they do, and if they were ginned up to it by al Qaeda operatives, they would be more tools in the attack rather than merely spontaneous let's have a party and go kill Americans because of a video we were told about (by al Qaeda operatives) types. But the video can fit into an equation which explores not actual reasons for the attack, but cosmetic justifications for it.

Who ever said this was an alQaeda attack? More assumptions?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Who ever said this was an alQaeda attack? More assumptions?

Al Qaeda affiliates? That was not said? And what did you mean by not being able to leave the video out of the equation? What do you mean by an equation . . . a=c? No a+b=c, or a+b+x=c? That the video was the sole reason for the attack? Is that truly what you meant by saying that the video could not be left out of the equation?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Al Qaeda affiliates? That was not said? And what did you mean by not being able to leave the video out of the equation? What do you mean by an equation . . . a=c? No a+b=c, or a+b+x=c? That the video was the sole reason for the attack? Is that truly what you meant by saying that the video could not be left out of the equation?

I believe the investigation found the attackers were a diverse mix of militants, Gaddafi loyalists and angry locals. A few of which had some connection al Qaeda members. That's a LONG way from saying it was an affiliate...and even LONGER from suggesting that previous al Qaeda behavior should be used as any measure in trying to establish a motive for the attack.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you replace the video with some other source of blame...like the anniversary of 9/11....some guy drawing a cartoon somewhere....a guy in Texas burning a stack of Korans.....

Yes, those are some of the types of reputed causes for various attacks. And if the differently motivated attacks are treated as separate incidents specifically caused by different reasons, there is the (manufactured?) appearance of no connective tissue holding them together as individual parts of a greater whole. If Korans are not burned, there will be no attacks. If cartoons are not drawn, there will be no attacks . . .

But if there is a broader issue binding the attacks together in a more basic cause such as Bin Laden's call for a global jihad against the satanic West and against even those Muslims who bastardize Islam . . . a jihad for the ultimate purpose of establishing a new, powerful, caliphate destined to rule the world . . . and the jihad to be carried out by individuals (lone wolves) as well as groups whether directly sponsored by his al Qaeda or philosophically affiliated with it . . . then wouldn't that be a constant variable added to the different and not constant variable reasons in each specific attack? Wouldn't that be the real reason for the attacks?

Otherwise we would have to hold those who burn Korans, or draw cartoons, or make videos, or who foster any incidence or lifestyle contrary to Islamic law, as the culprits, as the guilty parties who must be prosecuted for causing the attacks. Which means that all of us who are not proper Muslims are guilty and the cause of Muslim attacks.

And isn't that exactly the point of view of the Islamic attackers. And don't we corroborate that point of view by shifting blame to the rest of the world when we accuse various peripheral reasons for the attacks by Muslim perpetrators rather than understanding really why they do what they do?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the investigation found the attackers were a diverse mix of militants, Gaddafi loyalists and angry locals. A few of which had some connection al Qaeda members. That's a LONG way from saying it was an affiliate...and even LONGER from suggesting that previous al Qaeda behavior should be used as any measure in trying to establish a motive for the attack.

You have complained about "how many investigations" there were on Benghazi, which produced nothing, so I don't know which "investigation" you're referring to.

The Senate Report, as well as many others, said it was an organized terrorist attack which included individuals affiliated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As well, in many other reports, Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda allied militia, was involved. Many reports included the Mohammad Jamal network, headed by an Egyptian trained by al Qaeda. The Jamal network was in direct contact with Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, in 2011 and 2012, and conspired with AQAP, AQIM, and al Qaeda's leadership according to the U.S. govt. and the UN.

The House Permanent Select Committee, HPSI, said intelligence analysts and policy makers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding witnesses and senior military officials who testified that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks against U.S. interest. The report stated "why the administration sent Rice on to five Sunday talk shows with the talking points she had is a question beyond the scope of this report, and is, no doubt, a political question."

The HSPI report said that the CIA's Office of Public Affairs removed reference to al Qaeda in the second bullet of the original draft. And that the CIA should have challenged its own initial assessments about existence of a protest earlier. The Chairman concluded, among other things, that senior U.S. officials, including Hillary Clinton, perpetuated an inaccurate story that matched the administration's misguided view that the U.S. was nearing a victory over al Qaeda. Which contributed to the inadequate security protection in Benghazi. The chairmen claimed that Clinton received numerous reports of attacks in and around Benghazi yet did not approve repeated requests for additional security.

A N.Y. Times article, 11/20/2014, titled "Militants in Benghazi Attack Tied to al Qaeda Affiliate" was ironically co-authored by the Kirkpatrick who had previously written in The Times that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack. The article, in contradiction to what Kirkpatrick previously wrote, says that witnesses in Benghazi, as well as U.S. officials, say that Ansar al Sharia fighters played a major role in the assault on the Benghazi mission.

There are many more articles corroborating all the above, and which point out other various connections to al Qaeda and to the importance of al Qaeda affiliates in coordinating and leading the attack.

There is also this interesting information gathered by Judicial Watch which further points out the intentional deception regarding the video, etc. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ly-emerges.php

There is another Judicial watch discovery previous to the above one that indicates the administration was checking Google regarding about another video which they initially wanted to blame the attack on. I'm too tired and disinterested at this point to find it again. As you've said to Jim in CT--do the search--if you care to. Oops, never mind, found it quick--http://www.newsmax.com/TomFitton/Ben.../26/id/699133/

But if you insist on minimizing al Qaeda's involvement, especially its' affiliated "militants" leadership, remove al Qaeda as the constant variable cause in "the equation," and replace it with Islamic extremism. Or, simply, replace it with Islam. That works.