Continuing Fox News’ war-on-terrorism via semantics, Darrell Issa visited On The Record last night where, when asked what he had learned at his big Benghazi “whistleblower” hearing that day, the only thing he could point to was that it had been a “terrorist attack.” (H/T Think Progress)

VAN SUSTEREN: I’m curious, did you learn anything new today?

ISSA: I think the American people learned today from these brave witnesses, these whistleblowers, that the facts as we were told before during and after the attack at Benghazi just simply aren’t what they really were. The acting ambassador, after Ambassador Stevens was murdered, told us in great detail about what happened that day and what happened in the days to follow and why we should know that he knew and everyone else in the mission knew from the moment it happened, from the get-go, as he said, that this was a terrorist attack.

Issa pretended to be non-partisan and acting on behalf of the American people even though a Gallup poll released yesterday made it clear they want Congress to focus on jobs and the economy. He called on other Benghazi “whistleblowers” to come forward and promised to “get out” their stories. Then suggesting he’s looking forward to “clos(ing) up this investigation,” Issa said, with a straight face. “I don’t want to be chasing down every rabbit hole over how the administration was paranoid about us finding out. I’m only concerned about how do we keep this from happening in the future?”

Oh, really? Then why was this hearing held by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, rather than the Foreign Affairs Committee?

Not that Van Susteren challenged any of Issa’s preposterous statements. Instead, she asked “what prompted” one of yesterday’s witnesses to come forward now.

Supposedly liberal Van Susteren also somehow didn’t mention what her colleague Alan Colmes pointed out on his blog about the hearing: right-wing Benghazi conspiracy theories were destroyed by Issa’s own star witnesses.

Nor did she point out, as Think Progress did,

(A)s far as labeling Benghazi a terror attack, that issue has been settled long ago. President Obama referred to it as an “act of terror” the day after the attack and directly referred to the incident as “a terrorist attack” two weeks later. Issa probably didn’t need a hours-long hearing to get confirmation on that.

So what, ultimately, was the use of the hearing? Van Susteren likes to complain about government waste. But if she saw any usefulness of this dog-and-GOPony show, she kept it to herself.