Today in BENGHAZI !!1!!!1!1!!11!!!!!

And what blend of garlic and silver is going to drive the she-demon back to her lair today, The Daily Caller?

Left-wing writer Max Blumenthal helped inspire Hillary Clinton’s debunked talking point that an obscure YouTube movie called “Innocence of Muslims” was responsible for the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in 2012.

And that's important because ...?

The son of Clinton’s longtime political adviser and informal Libya consultant, Max Blumenthal pushed his conspiratorial theories onto the secretary of state in the hours after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed.

And that's important because ... ?

The Daily Caller reported in December that Hillary Clinton received the “Youtube video” talking points before the rest of the Obama administration. Clinton was the first administration official to suggest that the violence in Benghazi was caused by spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video, rather than by a terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaida.

Clinton first mentioned the video publicly on the morning of Sept. 13, 2012. Obama’s White House speechwriter Ben Rhodes, an NYU-educated fiction writer who was initially blamed for crafting the talking points, didn’t mention the video until Sept. 14, when he sent around a memo preparing Susan Rice and others for Sunday-show appearances to discuss the attack.

And that's important because ... timelines!!?!!?!

Now we know that Hillary became aware of the video on Sept. 12, the day after the attack, through her political adviser Sidney Blumenthal — Max Blumenthal’s father.

Let's stop the tape for a second here. Can we suggest that if Clinton actually "became aware of the video" on Sept. 12, one reason might be that she had tuned in to -- what was the top story on the Fox homepage the morning of Sept. 12, 2012?

Several things bear repeating: 

1) The world is a dangerous and often scary place. It was before the Kenyan usurper was elected, and it will be after the White House is pried from his fell clutch. Get used to it.
2) Lead stories aren't ordained by God and handed down at Sinai, nor do they get to be lead stories by accident. If the "debunked talking point" made sense at Fox, there's probably a reason for it. (Hint: How would Edward Said describe a narrative like "Bloodthirsty savages driven to unreasoning fury by obscure video"?)
3) If the vigilant newshounds of Fox and The Daily Caller really have trouble with the idea that competing explanations aren't always mutually exclusive -- that a plan to cause damage and mayhem can get an opportunistic boost from nonrelated events, or that an event can count as "terrorism" even if it doesn't have a signed and dated Qaida stamp of approval -- maybe they aren't the right people to be explaining terrorism and other forms of political violence.

Just a thought. But BENGHAZI!!!!!! is likely to crop up again over the ensuing months, and it'd be nice if the Fair 'n' Balanced side was reminded every now and then of its own preferred narrative at the time.