what is?

That was AFTER this first statement.

There is only one thing you are right about here, that he did not specifically say "this was an act of terror".

What he did say was "we will not tolerate acts of terror. Today we bury four of our best. We will not let this stop us from prsuing justice, and finding the people responsible".

If he was talking about a riot, why would he refer to the people as if they were an entity? If he was talking about a riot, why would he say, tonight, that he said he called it an act of terror. He allowed Romney to say other things that weren't true. Why would he vehemently be against what Romney said if he didn't say it? Was he TRYING to make himself look like a liar? No. He said tonight that he called it an act of terror because he himself believed to be implying it when he said it.

2:1

don't care, kasz.

I read the transcript, and it appears to me that in English, while not specifically calling it that, the context provides that he was referring to it, otherwise there was no point to bring up terrorism or trangressors save for brining up the anniversary of 9/11 which just so happened was in no way related to what he was talking about except for sharing the same date.

no in his speech he alludes to it before he even says the word terror. i bolded it in the transcript. and in a press release the same day (which i posted too) makes no mention of terror (as this one doesnt talk about 9/11, which is the context of his speech use of "terror"), but again alludes to the video. and this all makes more and more sense after watching the days following and seeing them blame the video, and not mention terror. 

I will admit he was likely bridging his mention of the 9/11 terror attack with calling what these people did was "an act of terror" but not in the sense that it was a planned cordinated terror plot perpertraited by the likes of al queda. In more of a general sense that killing people is "an act of terror".

but its still quite clear that obama was not calling it cordinated terror attack, but a spontaneous mob attack. which is consistant in his follwong statements by him and his adminastration. 

and its definetely something Candy had no business throwing her opinion in, throwing a flag so to speek. and it certainly isnt something Romeny got justifably called out on as the media (like msnbc) whats the narrative to be. and unfortunately it likely will be the narrative.

so a can agree with you to an extent, that they were both right. but not in the way that obama in his speech admitted it being a plotted cordinted terrorist attack plotted by a terrorist cell,( which is what romney was calling it), but a spontaneous mob terror attack, random, and due to a youtube video. 

don't care, kasz.

I read the transcript, and it appears to me that in English, while not specifically calling it that, the context provides that he was referring to it, otherwise there was no point to bring up terrorism or trangressors save for brining up the anniversary of 9/11 which just so happened was in no way related to what he was talking about except for sharing the same date.