"Act of Terror" in Obama's speech.

The whole embarrassment thing for Romney was caused by Romney, when he focused on what Obama had just stated in the debate about his speech in the Rose Garden. Romney zeroed in on that, thinking he had a gotcha on Obama. He said he wanted it on record that the Prez had just stated he had referenced "acts of terror" the day after the Libya attack.

Romney got caught with his magic underwear down because President Obama was not lying when he referenced his wording in the Rose Garden speech.

The debate conversation was NOT about the meaning of "acts of terror" or whether there was premeditation. It was simply whether Obama was lying when he said he used the term "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech. It is a fact that he did use that phrase, and that Romney didn't know that and tried to "gotcha" Obama on it.

Had Romney made an issue of what Obama meant by the term "acts of terror," this discussion would be different now, and Romney wouldn't have been so embarrassed at the debate.

The whole conversation about what "acts of terror" means and what Obama was talking about doesn't even matter, insofar as Romney's embarrassment at the debate is concerned. That is the Republican talking machine trying to change the point.

But for the record, it's my belief that the term terrorism includes protestors storming a compound and killing innocent civilians, just as much as it includes armed Al Qaeda affiliates planning an attack months ahead of time. And it seems clear to me that Obama was including the Libya attack as an act of terror, without even being clear of who did what and why. He seems to have been using the definition that is my understanding.

The Republicans' mistake is assuming that protestors storming the compound and killing civilians is not terrorism. It is.