Is "terror" the new "is"

During last nights Presidential debates, Mitt Romney challenged Obama on how long it took the Administration to characterize the Benghazi Consulate attacks as 'terrorism'. Mitt stated that the Administration had failed to use the word "terror" until around two weeks after the event.

Obama shot back by chiding "get the transcript". The debate moderator Candy Crowley interjected by claiming that "He did in fact call it an 'act of terror", but also conceded that "It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that."

The transcript from the September 12th Rose Garden speech does contain the word "terror": “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”. However, the timing of that term within the overall remarks make it a bit ambiguous if Obama was speaking specifically about the Benghazi event, or the overall theme of the misnomered 'war on terror'.

To stir the pot a bit more, on September 13th, Obama said in Colorado:  "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

Who is right? All three of them. Who is wrong....depends. If your a Democrat, clearly Romney was mistaken. If your a Republican, surely Obama is incorrect.

If your neither.....get some more popcorn because the theater of political vocabulary drama continues.