Aw, this is kind of sad. Megyn Kelly is now trying to explain Romney’s dismal debate performance by positing that words can mean their opposites, but only in reference to Benghazi, and especially when Obama says it. We begin our video with some white guy saying that there was a “military-like strike” in Benghazi, which was clear on “Day 1,” but what was confusing everyone was the relationship between the offensive video and “these protests.” Then he says that “given that there were protests going on in other cities because of this protest at the very same time” it was reasonable to assume that this military-like strike was part of the same wave of protests. BUT THEN Megyn weighs in with this philosophical head-scratcher: “declaring something an act of terror doesn’t mean you’re declaring it a terrorist attack.”

See, she continues, any act that is going to kill an ambassador “in this fashion” is going to be described as an “act of terror,” but that DOESN’T MEAN that it’s a terrorist attack! This is a fascinating development! How do we then explain Romney’s interest in saying that Obama did NOT call it an “act of terror,” and concluding that for this reason, Obama sucks and should not be re-elected? No word on that yet, but surely Megyn Kelly will figure out a way to either ignore the debate transcripts, or make it ok when Romney calls the Benghazi attack an “act of terror.”

[Media Matters]