Pro-Romney Bias/Error From Politifact?

Sure looks that way.

Look, that's just a bad ruling. P-fact is simply wrong here. Obama is right, Romney is wrong.

I'm certainly willing to describe this as a "pro-Romney error" rather than "pro-Romney bias," since the latter implies a pattern. I am inclined to think, as I've said in the past, that Politifact has bent over backwards trying to keep the fact-check tally from being a complete blow-out.

This is a bridge too far, however.

It is Romney who reduced this important question to the cartoon question (in essece) did the President use certain words? It's appalling that this is tolerated, but it is tolerated, and Romney did it. But Obama did indeed use the relevant words: he did identify the Benghazi attacks as "acts of terror." Case. Bloody. Closed.

Obama did not say "The attacks in Benghazi were acts of terror," but he used the phrase "acts of terror" in a way that clearly included and referred to the Benghazi attacks. This cannot be denied without absurdity. If this objection gets a "half-true," then so should the following objection: even when Obama says "the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack," he may be talking about a different Benghazi attack. But that's absurd.

P-fact needs to walk this one back. They are simply wrong about this.