He was referring to 9/11. If he did intend to call the attack on the consulate an act of terror, and in fairness his statement could be interpreted that way, he could have been clearer.
The fact that the adminstration continued to push the video story for a long time after that statement, and in that same Rose Garden speech, would tend to indicate that he was not referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.
For the record, what did you object to with respect to how Crowley handled the Libya exchange?
Indeed, he was talking about the Oklahoma City bombing, the day after the consulate was attacked. Good catch!
Did these people watch the same debate as the rest of us?
I got this impression as well. It was almost as if he felt he was entitled to more time even when his had expired.
My analysis: Obama won. Obama’s performance today made me wonder if the first debate was a feint. What frustrated me about the debate were the exchanges in which Romney and the President denied what the other was saying (e.g. Federal lands and gas drilling). It was those exchanges where it was impossible to tell whether one or both of the candidate were obfuscating.
Candy was more firm with Romney than Obama, although it’s not clear if this is due to her being annoyed with Romney’s behavior or whether she felt it was needed to keep the debate moving along. In any case, I appreciated the fact-checking with Libya. She did a good job, somewhere between Martha Raddatz and Jim Lehrer.
If they haven’t decided who they’re voting for at this point, it wouldn’t surprise me that one out of three of them STILL can’t figure out who beat whom.
Such as?
From my Twitter feed:
Dan Froomkin @froomkin
I think @mmcauliff is really onto something. The soundbytes I’ve seen so far are great for Obama and pretty awful for Romneh
Harold Pollack @haroldpollack
THIS MT @justinwolfers Romney’s Crowley moment happens when you’ve been prepped to be fast+loose with truth because no-one reads fact-checks
Michael McAuliff @mmcauliff
Romney didn’t do as poorly as Obama last time, but his gaffes will be much better for TV.
Paul Begala @PaulBegala
“I believe we’re all children of God. And some of those children need to be laid off, have their pensions raided & health care canceled.”
amaeryllis @amaeryllis
I’d love to know how Romney got as far as he did in finance being completely charmless. The most successful people I’ve met just exude charm
[Strip the partisanship, and this is pretty interesting. Nixon was another successful man who was socially awkward, albeit in a different way. Was Romney primarily a salesman?]
Daniel Larison @DanielLarison
So it turns out that not knowing anything about foreign policy and relying on nonsense attacks for 3.5 yrs has a price after all
Justin Wolfers @justinwolfers
Obama ends the debate a 64% chance to win the election, up from 61%. A bigger bump than Romney got last time. #Intrade http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474 ….
[Yawn. Too small a shift for the comparison to matter IMHO. Obama now at 64.8 FWIW. -mfm]
The Daily Edge @TheDailyEdge
Obama: “I’ll make wealthiest pay a tiny bit more” Romney: “I’ll cut Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and Pell Grants and instead” #debate
Daphne Eviatar @deviatar
Romney: If I become president, God will reduce the price of gas.
And 33% are undecided. Why do we even ask these idiots?
If I’m reading it correctly, someone correct me if I’m wrong, the difference is that trickle down economics works because you’re making conditions to where companies want to hire more people, which makes everyone richer.
Trickle down government is bad because of…um…socialism, or something.
9/11.
The best part was Obama’s saying “Please proceed governor” and Romney missing what should have been an obvious warning that he was being encouraged to walk right into a trap. :smack: 
Which 9/11?
Nonsense, as note above.
I can see the right wing is already trying to spin this “acts of terror” aren’t the same as “terrorist acts” bullshit.
I bet that makes some head spins around here.
The context:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
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.
I think Romney is on the wrong track over quibbling about whether Obama called it an “act of terror.” Whether the attack was over the video or because the perpetrators simply hated America, those are both acts of terror.
The problem is that for two weeks Obama and his minions kept blaming the video and saying that there was a protest outside the embassy. There was no protest and it wasn’t about the video. That puts the failed intel squarely on him and deserves a discussion of what happened, not just an admission of fault by Obama. One that Crowley cut short in her effort to help Obama.
First, Romney didn’t say “you should have been clearer.” He said the president hadn’t called it terrorism.
I’ve edited down the transcript in the way that I think is most favorable to your claim, and your claim is still ridiculous. Look at the rest of the paragraph for which the “act of terror” sentence is the topic. It’s all about what just happened, calls it a terrible act and talks about how we won’t waver in our commitment: in other words, it elaborates on the topic.
There is no way that this can be fairly interpreted as referring to 9/11 and not the previous day’s attack. (It can be interpreted as referring to both, of course, but not exclusively the former.)
Edit: ninja’ed by your quoting–except that, in order to buttress your interpretation, you had to cut off the rest of that paragraph. Verrrrry interesting. Did you do that yourself, or did you get it from a blog?
Uh - oh, Anderson Cooper just threw some cold water on Obama’s spin of the Benghazi exchange
An act of terror caused by a video? Do they really want to make this their story?