President did mention terror and acts of terror in context with the Benghazi attack on several other occasions without ever quite saying that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act, and it was always mixed up with crowds and the video, with much more emphasis on the later. This was Susan Rice's focus. The best you can make out of this is that the State Department was in a fog about what had actually happened and was therefore putting out appropriately foggy language, not wanting to say it was a terrorist attack, not wanting to say it wasn't--but given that State was in real time contact with the Embassy for six hours during the attack, why would there be this ambiguity? Why the non-specific language and the narrative about the crowds and the video? And why two weeks of this? That is a question that needs to be addressed.
After the debate, Crowley seemed to recognize herself that she'd crossed from debate moderator to debate participant:
Jason Chaffetz (Republican, Utah), in the panel discussion with Crowley, below, nails the problem; Crowley is giving an interpretation of Obama's speech--and this is not her place.
I do not agree with John T. Bennett, below, that Romney made a "Rose Garden Gaffe." Nevertheless, Bennett goes to the heart of the issue: this really is a coverup:
For a full review of the consistent refusal of the Obama administration to call the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack / act of terror / terrorism--pick your label--is made fully clear in the Fox News review in the blog entry entitled "The Holes in the Libya Narrative" on this blog.