Well... Is he referring to Benghazi as an "act of terror" or an "act of violence"? Because right after he says "no act of terror", he uses the phrase "no act of violence". You are outraged over the "apology tour" because if never actually said, "I apologize". He said numerous things in various speeches that could be take as an apology but he never actually said the word apology or apologize. Now, in this instance you are defending him by taking any reference to "act of terror" to mean he called Lybia an act of terror though he never says anything close to "Lybia was an act of terror". You obviously want to have it both ways.
The President in this speech was either speaking in generalities at the end of his speech when he mentions "act of terror", or he was practicing political double speak to give himself cover. You are assuming the later, but that really makes no sense. He repeatedly denied Lybia as being an "act of terror" after this. If this was a Republican Presidency, you would be screaming from the rooftops for impeachment because he intentionally misled and lied to the American people. There is now a paper trail to prove that the White House KNEW within hours that this was indeed an act of terror and yet the White House and State Dept spent weeks either denying it or claiming that they were still investigating.
How about a little consistency of logic here.