I am curious, what acts of terror do you think the President was referring to in the Rose Garden remarks about the attack on Benghazi? The anthrax attacks?

As for whose doing Obama favors, when you are regurgitating Fox News talking points, I think you need to check yourself on who is doing Obama favors.

Answer me this: did President Obama just go out into the Rose Garden with Secretary of State Clinton and just randomly make a generic statement?  Or did he go out there in response to the attack, and speak with reference to it - albeit in a rather broad fashion?

And do you think, in the immediacy of the aftermath, when information was still being gathered, that it would have been responsible of the president to speak as if he had more information than he actually had?

I realize there is a tendency to believe we are entitled to know whatever everyone else knows almost as soon as they know it, but the reality is that we don't.

It never struck me that Obama and members of the administration were trying to hide anything, as much as they were trying to walk a fine line between going off half-cocked - like Romney did, without regard for the reaction and responses his comments might generate in the wake of what happened - and erring on the side of discretion in light of the possibility that what started as one attack could quickly blow up into more.

Perhaps, in the wake of 9/11, and the constant and deliberate manipulation of intelligence and the facts that led us to war in Iraq, we are all a little jaded about what we are being told and why; it is equally true that some of this administration's decisions have left me less than thrilled.  But the powder keg that is much of the Middle East cannot be managed with the kinds of intemperate and irresponsible comments and reactions to the attack that we saw from Mitt Romney.

Heh.  Desperate much?

If you want to use legal definitions, why not choose 18 USC 2331(1), which defines "terrorism" for purposes of criminal law and procedure (as opposed to State Department reporting requirements):

"[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum

See?  No premeditation required for "terrorism", let alone an "act of terror".

BTW - Nice cropping of Rice's quotes.  Perhaps if you quoted them in full, you would recognize all of the qualifiers she attached to her statements:

RICE:  They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of -- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

RICE: -- sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that -- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

and

MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there's an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's-- that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

So you are wrong.  It could easily be premeditated for one man and very spontaneous for all the rest of them that joined him in attacking the consulate that day.

In the Las Vegas statement, Obama is using the same carefully crafted phrase, and I understand all the good reasons why he would do that (in the Rose Garden, too). I support the President and the Secretary of State and am not criticizing their conduct in the Benghazi incident.

What "same carefully crafted phrase"?  You mean the phrase "act of terror"? ... the very phrase Romney said he didn't use?  Or is your interpretation based on a belief that it somehow doesn't count because it didn't appear in the same sentence, ignoring the fact that he was clearly referring to the Benghazi attack?

... Thank you.  So I wanted to begin tonight by just saying a few words about a tough day that we had today.  We lost four Americans last night, who were killed when they were attacked at a diplomatic post in Libya.  And they were serving overseas on our behalf, despite the dangers, despite the risks, to help one of the world's youngest democracies get on its feet.  They were working to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.  And as Americans, we stand united -- all of us -- in gratitude for their service, and we are mindful of their sacrifice, and we want to send out heartfelt prayers to their loved ones who grieve today.  (Applause.)

It's a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy -- sometimes even the freedoms we take for granted -- they're only sustained because there are people like those who were killed, who are willing to stand up for those freedoms; who are willing to fight for those freedoms; in some cases, to lay down their lives for those freedoms.  So tonight, let's think of them and thank them.  As for the ones we lost last night:  I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice.  (Applause.)  And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm:  No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.

Are you seriously trying to claim that his "act of terror" statement was completely independent of all the sentences immediately preceding it?  If so, ...

[Y]ou are standing their spinning in your own spittle.