Romney airballed that one. the issue is not word choice, it was that Obama for two weeks said the attack was a protest out of control because of a youtube video - when HE KNEW it was a pre-planned terror attack.

Obama is playing politics here as much as Romney. Cannot stand either of these candidates.

Mark Warner in 2016 please.

To be honest I have a problem with how Obama handled the whole situation. He did indeed imply the video was to blame while yes of course any act like this is an act of terror if you get into semantics. I have a huge problem with Hilary becoming the fall guy for the whole situation, though I do commend Obama for taking some responsibility this evening.

I think Hilary would make a better candidate than Obama right now, but the situation is what it is.

He did both - referred to the video and used "act of terror"


“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”


He did speak to the UN on 9/25 and once again insinuate the video was to blame. By that point everyone knew it was and act of terror.

"“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

Exact quote:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation"

Open to interpretation, but strictly speaking, Obama called it an act of terror.

Candy Crowley said he did call it that in the Rose Garden. Romney was called out.

I am referring to Obama. Did he call it an act of terror? Or did he say something else. If Romney is wrong, oh boy.