Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Fox’s Your World show yesterday to attack President Obama over the zombie Benghazi scandal. Yesterday’s excuse for keeping it undead? Whether or not President Obama’s description of the attack as an “act of terror” was, as host Neil Cavuto put it, “really the same as (calling it) a terrorist act?”

Any Fox watcher knows that the answer is not only “no,” but that the difference means Obama was engaging in some big cover up that should also disqualify then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from being president. But that's no reason not to tell us all over again.

Yesterday's pretext for raising the (un)dead was President Obama's Super Bowl interview with Bill O'Reilly - where Benghazi was, predictably, one of the main subjects.

Cavuto asked Graham, “Senator, you’re arguing the President is trying to have it both ways. That he immediately seized on this as a terrorist attack when in fact he did not.”

GRAHAM: No, I’m telling the public the President misled the nation about what happened in Benghazi. Last year, he got the lie of the year award for saying if you like your health care, you could keep it. He’s going to have back-to-back titles by saying this. How do you reconcile what Susan Rice told the nation on 16 September, the spokesman for the administration, when she said there was no terrorist attack, no Al-Qaeda involvement, this was a protest caused by a video and she told the nation there was no terrorist attack, no Al Qaeda involvement, when in fact there was and the President, himself, started talking about a protest caused by video because if the truth had been known seven weeks before an election, that it was an Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist attack you could see coming for a long time, his re-election was at risk.

No, they manipulated the facts to get re-elected, and the reason Benghazi doesn’t go away - it’s not a Fox News story, you know, it’s not a Republican story, it’s an American story, and people want to know more because four dead Americans.

Instead of pointing out how an extensive New York Times investigation found that the anti-Islamic video did play a substantial role in provoking the attacks and that Al Qaeda was not formally involved, host Neil Cavuto helped validate Graham.

Cavuto first feigned balance by saying, “A lot of people go back and forth, Senator, on what the president knew… what he said and how he meant it, whether it‘s semantics, whether it’s just being deliberately deceitful.”

Then Cavuto added this piece of gratuitous information that could only have been inserted to make Obama look bad: “We do know this, that the day after this incident, (Obama) was off to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser. …(I)f memory serves me right, it was Mitt Romney who was criticized for commenting on this in a plane, off to a campaign event, and no one noticed the oddity of the president disparaging that in a plane off to a fundraising event.”

Graham, however, soon returned to beating the Benghazi dead horse. Or undead horse. He continued:

…How could Susan Rice tell the nation there’s no evidence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack? …Clearly, they were trying to politically shape the events in Benghazi because it’s seven weeks before an election, and this will catch up with them eventually because they’re misleading us, and the President is still misleading us.

Cavuto continued the politicization by “asking” Graham if Benghazi will be Hillary Clinton’s “biggest potential embarrassment in 2016.”

Sure enough, yes, Graham thought so:

Being regretful is no substitute for accountability. Really, what the President said dishonors the service of those who died in the line of duty, and is an affront to their families. …She should not be President of the United States if she was unable to appear on television and talk about what happened to a consulate under her control.

So if Clinton wins, we can look forward to Benghazi remaining undead for almost three more years.