To be fair, YES, that sounds like it to me. Romney put himself in a position to be made to look foolish. Who ever gave him his talking points needs a butt chewing.
To be fair, it's probably best to take the speech in its entirety and just exactly where that particular SINGULAR mention of terrorism was mentioned.
Even if one wants to give Obama the pass as implicitly labeling the Benghazi debacle a terror attack with that comment, how does one explain the insistent and constant refrain from THREE SEPARATE ADMINISTRATION SOURCES (WH, Rice, and Clinton) over the next week that made a desperate effort NOT to make it a terror attack, but instead called it a juvenile prank of a disgruntled group of protestors (who, by the way, weren't there--so there's an outright lie from the administration)?