It depends whom you were listening to, and at what time.
DiBlasio, the Mayor, initially was quoted as saying it was an "intentional act", but not terrorism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tm9XMrio98
If you really listen carefully, he was just saying that there was no evidence as of yet that it was terrorism. He got hammered because it was clear to everybody from the pictures in the media of an un-exploded pressure cooker bomb that was found nearby that it was a bombing. Added to that, just a day before pipe bombs were exploded right next door in New Jersey at a military event, and there was a stabbing of multiple people at a Wisconsin mall of a man talking about Islam.
Cuomo, the governor, tried to give him cover by saying that, obviously, setting off bombs is terrorism, but we don't know the kind of terrorism that is behind it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tm9XMrio98
I think public officials have to carefully parse out their words so as not to jump the gun, but also so as not to look ridiculous by being too careful. They probably should say something to the effect that there is no proof as of yet about the motivation behind the bombing, but that given recent events there will, of course, be an investigation as to whether there is a link to radical Muslim extremism.
Otherwise, people are going to start believing that the media and the more far left politicians try desperately to distort the facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tm9XMrio98