About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Crowley falsely claims Bush, Cheney had "100 percent perfect track record" in preventing "Islamic terrorist attack"

January 06, 2010 11:17 pm ET — 87 Comments

On The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley asserted that "[a]fter 9-11, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had a 100 percent perfect track record in keeping the homeland safe from an Islamic terrorist attack." In fact, while Crowley and other conservative media figures have recently downplayed the number of attacks on the United States under former President Bush, there were numerous post-9-11 terrorist attacks attempted and carried out during the Bush administration.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the January 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

CROWLEY: After 9-11, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had a 100 percent perfect track record in keeping the homeland safe from an Islamic terrorist attack. So far this year, we've had numerous attacks.

O'REILLY: Well, what about the shoe bomber? What about the shoe bomber?

CROWLEY: That was coming into the United States. It was not a domestic terror attack. I mean, it was meant to be, but it was stopped by the folks on the plane. So far this year, we've had a dramatic uptick in the number of attacks that have actually been successful in being carried out. We had the shooting deaths of the U.S. military in Little Rock, Arkansas, left one dead. We had the Fort Hood shootings. We've got the arrest of five Muslim Americans coming out of Washington, D.C., in Pakistan on terrorism charges. And the list goes on. And now, of course, we have this Detroit bombing.

Fact: Islamic attacks took place under Bush after 9-11

2002 attack against El Al ticket counter at LAX. In July 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet opened fire at an El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing two people and wounding four others before being shot dead. A 2004 Justice Department report stated that Hadayet's case had been "officially designated as an act of international terrorism."

2006 UNC SUV attack. In March 2006, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill graduate Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV into an area of campus, striking nine pedestrians. According to reports, Taheri-azar said he acted because he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world." Taheri-azar also reportedly stated in a letter: "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11/01 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree."

2001 shoe bomber attempted attack. In June 2008, then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described Reid's December 2001 attempt "to blow up a trans-Atlantic plane with a shoe bomb" as an attempt to "carry out terrorist operations for Al-Qaeda."

Fact: Crowley's list of "numerous attacks" during Obama administration included arrest of students, foiled attack

Students arrested while seeking to join terrorists, not for having carried out attacks. After stating that "we've had a dramatic uptick in the number of attacks that have actually been successful in being carried out," Crowley listed several attacks, including the arrest in Pakistan of five Muslim students from Virginia. However, the students reportedly were arrested after an investigation by Pakistani officials and the FBI while seeking to join terrorist groups.

Crowley cites Abdulmutallab among attacks, dismisses Reid's similar attempted bombing. In her list of "numerous attacks," Crowley also included "this Detroit bombing." However, the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from the Netherlands to Detroit by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was unsuccessful after other passengers on the flight subdued him as he attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear. The circumstances of his attack were similar to those of the attempted December 2001 bombing of American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. In that attack, passengers subdued Reid as he tried to light a fuse to set off explosives concealed in his sneakers. When O'Reilly brought up the Reid attack, Crowley stated: "That was coming into the United States. It was not a domestic terror attack. I mean, it was meant to be, but it was stopped by the folks on the plane."

Fact: Other conservatives have also denied existence of terrorist attacks under Bush

Frederick, Perino ignore attacks that occurred during Bush term. As Media Matters for America has documented, other conservative media figures also have denied that terrorist attacks occurred under Bush after 9-11. In a Las Vegas Review-Journal column, Las Vegas Review-Journal publisher Sherman Frederick falsely claimed that "the two cases of domestic terrorism since 9/11" happened "on Obama's watch." Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino falsely claimed on the November 24, 2009, edition of Fox News' Hannity that "[w]e did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Dr. Deathpanel (January 06, 2010 11:36 pm ET)
         
      If a liberal media personality even so much as suggested that the "Underwear Bomber" wasn't Obama's fault, they'd be crucified.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 11:49 pm ET)
      16  
      Well, monica, you have managed the ultimate in crassness: keeping score. So, in honor of your total lack of class, I proclaim the score to be Bush 2975, Obama 13. (And, credit where credit is due, Bush managed 2973 in his first 9 months - way to go, George!)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (January 07, 2010 10:55 am ET)
        7  
        And while those peoplw were dtying on 9/11, Commander Bunnypants was hiding like a scared rabbit.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by stevensm (January 07, 2010 11:27 am ET)
          5  
          Exactly. It seems I'm constantly hearing some Bush apologist bragging about how Bush did such a good job keeping us safe AFTER or SINCE 9/11.

          But they don't seem to want to talk about the failings of the Bush administration regarding 9/11. Monica Crowley is just another in a long line of excuse makers who prefers to not hold the Bush administration accountable in any way for what happened on 9/11. If she could find a way, she'd probably like to blame Obama for 9/11.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Onyxcat (January 08, 2010 9:05 am ET)
               
            I agree with you there stevesm. I still remember the Bush administration loudly proclaimed how safe we were after 9-11. Apparently we weren't.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by rkcomments (January 07, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
        4  
        Whichever way they slice and dice it, the bottomline is that the republicans could not protect us on 9/11/2001. For that they should be ashamed and shut up for the next 500 years.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 2:15 am ET)
      10  
      Because we CAN'T prevent all terrorist attacks. Even if we closed all our borders to any foreigners, they'd get in through tunnels and on sailboats and on small planes. Even if we made everyone but the cops stay in their own homes, all the time, we end up with some corrupt cops! There isn't a way to ever be 'assured', as RightON insisted he wanted to be, that no further terrorist attacks were gonna happen!

      And there isn't a way to contend that there weren't any terrorist attacks after 9/11 while Bush was in office, but even if there weren't, there's no way anyone can claim that it's a result of Bush's policies and actions! In fact, there are more terrorists, in more countries, now than ever before AS A RESULT of Bush's aggressive behavior in the mideast and his failure to successfully capitalize on the worldwide goodwill we had after 9/11.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by WildcatProgressive (January 07, 2010 8:54 am ET)
        3  
        Thank you. If you want it on a personal level, if someone is absolutely set on killing you, and does not care if they die in the process, there is almost no protection against it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 07, 2010 10:01 am ET)
        3  
        Even if we made everyone but the cops stay in their own homes, all the time, we end up with some corrupt cops!

        You wouldn't need 'em! If our gov't acted like THIS, I can assure you that I would galdly be counted among the "terrorists" seeking to overthorw it.

        (Along with all the other Liberals and Civil Libertarians while the conservatives and right-wingers cower in their beds, wetting their sheets.)

        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Glen Beck's paradise of "freedom" is exactly what your describing!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
        1 8
        DollySueLiar,

        If you couldn't lie, you couldn't post.

        What I said was I expected an assurance from the head of homeland security that this negligent, sloppy security lapse in letting this terrorist on the plane won't happen again, under her watch. I never said anything about an assurance of no terrorist attack ever happening again. So many warning signs were missed with the Christmas Day bomber that it's inexcusable, from his own father's warnings to our CIA to many other red flags that we missed, and dots we didn't connect.

        So please leave my name out of your posts because it is inevitably attached to one of your lies. Post your own opinions, exclusively.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
          5  
          Yeah, and it's unreasonable to expect that kind of assurance!

          The liar on that thread and on countless others has been you.

          There wasn't a sloppy security lapse at the Amsterdam airport. The problem was the inability of the analysts to determine that this one person was a risk!

          Janet Napolitano has a role in the actual security at the gates, but it's a different person who oversees the intelligence gathering...but for some reason, you're only going after her, when it wasn't her failure at all.

          So, you were demanded assurances that she not fail you again, when the truth is that she hadn't failed you at all!

          And when you stop acting in a dishonest fashion, I'll stop using you as an example of dishonest behavior.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 12:52 pm ET)
              8
            "when the truth is that she hadn't failed you at all!"

            She didn't? What exactly did she do to thwart the Christmas Day bombing?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
                8
              Or you can substitute "the Dept of Homeland Security" for "her".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
                  8
                Actually a more correct question would be; What exactly did she or her department do that was responsible for thwarting the attempted bombing over our skies on Christmas Day?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 07, 2010 1:39 pm ET)
                  3  
                  I agree with you that there is failure within our national security apparatus. If it can be linked to Napolitano or systems she has put in place, then she should be dismissed. I have no special regard for her. But, I have not seen sufficient evidence to fire her as of yet.

                  However, I am all in favor of eliminating her position. These extra layers of national security bureaucracy have done nothing to fix the problem and, in my opinion, have exacerbated it. I think it is bigger than any one position even.

                  I know I am repeating myself but we have invaded multiple countries, killed thousands, spent billions, and still we have the original problem that failed us on 9/11. We seem to be able to actually gather info, but our system does not seem efficient nor effective enough to work quickly enough to act on the info it has.

                  We have too many different layers of different departments of bureaucracy and none of them seem to trust each other enough to share pertinent information. We need to streamline this national security thing, and instead we added another entire layer of bureaucracy ontop of it to make ourselves feel better. G-Dub is responsible for this - yet another decision that played well to the frightened while actually making the problem worse. But, it will take a real leader to step up and explain to the American people that we will never be completely safe in a free society. Never. And, that we are acually less safe by adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy to the national security team.

                  We need one (maybe two) departments that can operate efficiently and effectively and is not afraid to share information up the chain of command quickly so that info can be acted on. I will not hold my breath for Obama to step up and tell us these hard truths. He seems like a good man and a decent president so far, but he also seems to have become too poltically sensitive to spend his political capital telling the American people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
                      3
                    Well said, fair enough.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by pauldd (January 08, 2010 12:54 am ET)
                    2  
                    I find it amusing (yet tragic) that the right-wingers are such bed-wetting cowards in that they demand 100% assurances that no US citizen will ever die in a terrorist attack but they have no problem knowing that 42,000 Americans die every year in car accidents, 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health insurance and about 100,000 Americans die each year due to adverse reactions to prescription medications.

                    I know these statistics don't bother them because when we liberals talk about regulating car manufacturers to make them safer or providing a public health insurance option so the uninsured get coverage or increasing FDA oversight on drugs to protect consumers, they all scream in unison about the dangers of socialism and big government interfering in the "free market".

                    But somehow, they are always able to label liberals as being "weak on terror" or "weak on national defense" without getting kicked in the teeth like they deserve for being such un-American A-holes. Let's start kicking, and keep kicking these cowards to the curb, where they belong.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
              4
            "Yeah, and it's unreasonable to expect that kind of assurance!" by DollySueDell

            "We know what happened, we know what didn't happen, and we know how to fix it," Jones said. "That should be an encouraging aspect. We don't have to reinvent anything to make sure it doesn't happen again." by James Jones, WH National Security Advisor today.

            So Dolly, take up your unreasonable expectations with Mr. Jones.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 7:33 pm ET)
              1  
              This guy saying he's trying to make sure that this thing doesn't happen again isn't an ASSURANCE that it won't.

              You said "She took no responsibility, no assurance this couldn't happen again." That's not the same thing as what this guy said.

              You were wrong the other day, and you're still wrong.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 7:39 pm ET)
              1  
              And she wasn't responsible for the 'security lapse' anyway.

              It was a failure to connect the dots within the intelligence division. It was a one letter misspelling of the guy's name that made them miss that potential sign - are you going to hold HER responsible for the misspelled name? Or for the people who didn't connect the dots? Or for Amsterdam believing that using a body scanner was against the EU's rules?

              "What I said was I expected an assurance from the head of homeland security that this negligent, sloppy security lapse in letting this terrorist on the plane won't happen again, under her watch."

              It wasn't her fault. I am sorry you think that people should be fired for things that weren't their fault, and I hope you're never a boss of anyone else so that you can't fire anyone for someone else's mistakes.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mari2jj (January 08, 2010 2:02 am ET)
                   
                Let us remember it was the Bush Administration that released some Yemen detainees, however many it was and at least one of them returned to the fight. It was also the Bush administration that tortured Gitmo detainees, and it was actually the Bush system in place when this all happened. Bur although I am a Republican, I am impressed with the Obama speech that took responsibility for this problem and did not hide behind the fact that it was the Bush's planned program. Still, President Obama will have an opportunity to tighten up on the intel program he inherited from the previous administration. It is a pleasant change to hear Mr. Obama state his responsibility for things that happen on his watch. Also a wondeful thing that although Cheney blabs all the time, Bush is so classy he keeps his mouth shut. Cheney embarrasses my Republican ties and Bush makes me proud.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 09, 2010 10:55 am ET)
                     
                  I am not sure if we should jump all over the G-Dub administration for releasing the Gitmo detainees. If we could not prove they had done anything wrong and were not a threat, we had to release them. There is a real possibility they were never a threat to begin with until we locked them away without charges in Gitmo. I don't know this to be true, but I hesitate to jump all over G-Dub for actually recognizing that locking away all these men without charges indefinitely is actually unsustainable.

                  I also liked Obama's speech. I like almost all of his speeches. He says all the right things. The man gives great speech. I would, however, like to see him actually follow through on some of the tough decisions that he knows must be made. I would like to see him spend more of his own political capital. For a few examples, I would have liked for him to push for his own healthcare reform package and let us know what reforms he saw as necessary to fix the mess. I would like to hear him come out and say which reforms he thinks the national security apparatus needs to become more efficient and able to move more quickly.

                  I, for one, want a leader to lead me. I think the American people do as well. And, I also think there are many, many Americans like me who believe that Obama is a very smart and decent man and is willing to give him a chance and the benefit of the doubt if he would only step forward and lead a little more forcefully.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (January 07, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
             
          You might find this article interesting. It looks like this is more of a policy failure than an intelligence failure.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
              3
            It's a good article, but I also accept Obama's view that dots were not connected.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 7:44 pm ET)
               
            The article you cite is from 12/31. We know a lot more now than we did a week ago, and now we know that they had much more info than we did know before.

            I haven't read or seen a thing that says that a father saying he's worried about a son is enough to ban him from an airplane to the USA. What I've seen is that the additional information is what should keep him off the plane.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mari2jj (January 08, 2010 2:06 am ET)
               
            Nah, it is a spelling failure. Some body left off one letter in their rendition of his name so he did not look all thast suspicious. I bet now they have a spell checker for just that purpose. Unless we use some Ninja or the likes, we will always have human error. Frankly I find Cheney's assessment of the Obama administration to be on the delusional psychotic side. His ability to lie to himself is a very sad omen.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 08, 2010 12:44 pm ET)
                 
              I don't think anyone other than the media take Cheney's assessment of anything seriously. He is a proven failure. His ideas were allowed to reign supreme for over 4 years and G-Dub's legacy and our country are still paying the price. He has never been right about anything of substance and he knows it.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Onyxcat (January 08, 2010 9:07 am ET)
           
        True. And Gitmo ain't helping. Once its closed we may have better relations.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (January 07, 2010 6:35 am ET)
      3  
      You would think they would ditch this line with the shoe bomber coming up in the news. And Bush's remarks credited the passengers and crew while not laying out any strategy of his own. The main reason we haven't had another major attack is because the public is more aware not because Homeland Security can see everything.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (January 07, 2010 8:54 am ET)
      3  
      Except for that one . . . you know the one that happened on Rudy's favorite day? What garbage.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (January 07, 2010 8:57 am ET)
      3  
      BTW, it only takes ONE terrorist attack to achieve the terrorists' goal. If their desired goals are met in one attack . . . in this case to destroy our way of life, to destroy our hedonistic freedoms [in their view], to destroy our sense of well-being and security, to destroy our economy . . . there is no need to ever attack again. The terrorists almost won under the Bush Administration.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (January 07, 2010 9:07 am ET)
      2  
      The 500 Rove Rangers in a Room at the Heritage Foundation just got their first "Talking Point" Gold Star for the new year.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 07, 2010 9:17 am ET)
      2 3
      How can a sane human being call the shoe-bomber unsuccessful (which it was) and then consider the Detroit incident "a bombing?"

      Also, I take this post to mean that MMfA agrees that the Ft. Hood shooting was a true terrorist attack, because it considered the UNC student driving through people and the shooting at LAX to be so as well...unless MMfA is just going by whatever the government at the time designated the action to be.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (January 07, 2010 11:09 am ET)
        2  
        Well the only consistent position would be to regard both the UNC and the Fort Hood attacks in the same way (whether you consider them "acts of terrorism or not). Crowley is obviously not doing that. She is cherry picking.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Frankeee (January 07, 2010 8:32 pm ET)
             
          They could be both literal acts of terrorism but it doesn't matter whether they were or not if the public does not [i]feel[i]that way. If their intent was to terrorize Americans but failed.....its a non issue (for us). If they were part of a cell or had help.....thats an issue for intel agencies
          Report Abuse
      • Author by LKL (January 07, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
        3  
        How can a sane human being call the shoe-bomber unsuccessful (which it was) and then consider the Detroit incident "a bombing?"


        I second that!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Old55 (January 07, 2010 9:36 am ET)
         
      It's amazing how quickly people forget, isn't it? Americans have a notoriously short memory.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Turk72 (January 07, 2010 9:45 am ET)
         
      This is what they're going to do now? go back and revise history for us. We need to not let this happen. Stand up and say "that's not the way it happened" every time you hear a conservative talk about how great it was under Bush. The republicans know and have proven on numerous occasions that they firmly believe that the more times you tell a lie to the American people the more likely they are to believe it (e.i. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction). We, as a nation, are as safe now as we were under Bush, if not safer. What's really sad is that it appears that all of these pudits hope that we will be attacked again if only to prove thier point. I hated the anti-terrorist policies of the Bush administration because I felt that they were going way beyond defending our nation and in the lobng run making the problem worse, but I never hoped we'd be attacked again just so I could say "see it's not working, and it's Bush's fault."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by usemybrain (January 07, 2010 10:07 am ET)
         
      yea, i think the point Media Matters, and from some of the comments here, that youre all missing in comparing the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber also the Ft Hood shooting is that U.S. agencies had information that could have prevented the attacks. OK, you understand the problem now?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheney2012 (January 07, 2010 10:13 am ET)
      1 14
      Memo to Media Matters:

      George W. Bush is no longer the president. Time to move on. Wasn't 'moving on' the whole point of one of your sister fascist organizations?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (January 07, 2010 10:18 am ET)
        7 1
        Ah, but, guy with the stupid name, we are still suffering for his incompetence and will for a while. Bet you think that because you use that stupid name and support the incompetent one you are "conservative," right? Well, a clue. Nothing about the Bush administration represented conservatism.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by skatscan5624 (January 07, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
          3  
          Well, They still blame Jimmy Carter and FDR for what's wrong in their lives.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 07, 2010 10:18 am ET)
        8  
        The score-keeping was instigated by the Right, doofus.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (January 07, 2010 10:42 am ET)
        10  
        Did you read the post? Crowley brought up Bush/Cheney, not MMFA.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mrhebert74 (January 07, 2010 12:50 pm ET)
          4  
          If Cheney EVER reads a post, it's to figure out how to avoid responding to it in an intelligent way.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by rms (January 07, 2010 11:14 am ET)
        8  
        "George W. Bush is no longer the president. Time to move on."

        No. Your "side," Dick, keeps blaming Clinton for, well, pretty much everything, and you expect us to be dishonest about Dubya's lingering coat-tails? Get real, please.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (January 07, 2010 11:27 am ET)
        6  
        "George W. Bush is no longer the president. Time to move on."

        The person after whom you take your screen name is no longer Vice President. Time to move on, friend.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 07, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
        5  
        Unbelievable. Dick2012 wants us to forget about G-Dub and Cheney and all their horrific examples of mistakes in government. Meanwhile, he continues to carry the moniker of the Dick. He does not even see the irony in this. Classic simple mind at work.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 07, 2010 7:07 pm ET)
        5  
        Memmo to Cheney2012:
        While BOY GEORGE is no longer in office, PRESIDENT OBAMA, and the rest of the country are having to deal the failures and disasters of his administration and will be for years to come.Cheney,you are a complete RIGHT WING fool.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (January 07, 2010 8:09 pm ET)
           
        MoveOn is fascist? You have to be kidding me.

        Crowley brought it up. She mentioned that the shoe bomber was unsuccessful but she called this lated thwarted attack a "bombing".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Lizinbklyn (January 07, 2010 11:04 am ET)
      6  
      Weren't there ANTHRAX ATTACKS post 9/11??

      Didn't people die??
      Report Abuse
      • Author by stevensm (January 07, 2010 11:33 am ET)
        5  
        Yes, the anthrax letters were sent just shortly after 9/11 and 5 people died with numerous others becoming ill.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 07, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
        3  
        She very carefully said Islamic terrorist. Like it matters what a killers ideology is.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (January 07, 2010 12:12 pm ET)
        6  
        Considering Crowley said the word "Islamic" with regards to the terrorist attacks, we do not know for sure who perpetrated the Anthrax attacks. I think MMfA was correct to leave it out in order to compare apples to apples.

        It is funny, though. There is this list going around by conservatives (while fully engaged in their "bash Muslims" mode) who claim all sorts of "Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil" that - what do you know? - happened under the Bush Administration:

        3/19/2002 - Tuscon, AZ - A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.

        5/27/2002 - Denton, TX - Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.

        7/4/2002 - Los Angeles, CA - Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.

        9/5/2002 - Clinton, MD - A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.

        9/21/2002 - Montgomery, AL - Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.

        9/23/2002 - Baton Rouge, LA - A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.

        10/2/2002 - Wheaton, MD - Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.

        10/3/2002 - Montgomery County, MD - Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.

        10/9/2002 - Manassas, VA - A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.

        10/11/2002 - Fredericksburg, VA - Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.

        10/14/2002 - Arlington, VA - A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.

        10/22/2002 - Aspen Hill, MD - A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.

        8/6/2003 - Houston, TX - After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.

        12/2/2003 - Chicago, IL - A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.

        4/13/2004 - Raleigh, NC - A Muslim man runs down five strangers with a car.

        4/15/2004 - Scottsville, NY - In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.

        6/16/2006 - Baltimore, MD - A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.

        6/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.

        7/28/2006 - Seattle, WA - An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.

        10/6/2006 - Louisville, KY - In an 'honor' attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.

        2/13/2007 - Salt Lake City, UT - A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.

        1/1/2008 - Irving, TX - A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their 'Western' lifestyle.

        7/6/2008 - Jonesboro, GA - A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.

        Leave it to conservatives to use these examples to bash Muslims, but ignore the very same list to pretend that President Obama is supposedly "not keeping us safe" or some other b.s. claim like Crowley's false argument.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mrhebert74 (January 07, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
          1  
          Yeah, but the one in Clinton, Maryland doesn't count because it was obviously Clinton's fault.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 07, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
          2  
          According to this list, there seems to be alot of Muslim "snipers" out there. In fact, there seems to be more snipers here than in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Very interesting....LOOK OUT! They're right behind you! AHHHHHHH!

          I will never understand why an actual adult would find solace in scaring the crap out of themselves unjustifiably. I am picturing a man rocking back and forth in the fetal position.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by CPT_Doom (January 07, 2010 4:30 pm ET)
               
            Well, all the sniper attacks were the work of the same two people, John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo, and in fact does not include all their crimes. Their murder spree, IIRC, began in Washington State and also included the shooting of a VA woman in a Michael's parking lot (she survived).
            Report Abuse
        • Author by njlib (January 07, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
             
          and.....

          November 12, 2001 – American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300, crashes into a Queens neighborhood in New York City when the plane's vertical tail fin snaps just after takeoff. All 251 passengers and nine crew members on board are killed as well as five people on the ground.

          ......Al Quaeda too credit for it and Richard Reid confirmed it was a shoe bomb, where was our media or media matters on that one?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (January 07, 2010 11:59 am ET)
      4  
      Well besides the obvious one (9/11) and the hypocrisy about Reid v Adulmulltab what about all the suicide bombers who killed US soldiers in Iraq? They kept telling us they were terrorists so why don't they count? And wasn't one of our embassies attacked during Bush's tenure?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 12:50 pm ET)
        4  
        Restricting it to US soil or US citizens is ridiculous, you're right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mrhebert74 (January 07, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
          3  
          Wrong. Remember, the whole reason we invaded Iraq was so terrorists wouldn't attack us here.

          Only the bushies could say "bringing the fight to the enemy" and mean "so there's a much more convenient location for killing Americans."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (January 07, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
            3  
            You make a very good point. Also only Bush could consider attacking Iraq as 'taking the fight to them' when all the hijackers were Saudis.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 07, 2010 7:47 pm ET)
               
            And because Iraq invited us to use their country as a battleground (oh, wait, they didn't) and because Iraq was willing to have a ton of insurgents and terrorists move into their country (oh, wait, they weren't) and have them kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's (oh wait, they didn't).
            Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (January 07, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
          2  
          I am pretty much restricting it to US citizens. A US embassy is considered US soil, I think. And although not our soil Iraq was certainly under our control when most of the attacks occurred.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (January 07, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
      5  
      The Bush administration approved Muhammad Atta's visa request in 2002. The world's most famous dead terrorist.

      Nice perfect record there.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (January 07, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
        1  
        The world's most famous dead terrorist.

        What? You don't watch Jeff Dunham?

        ;)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (January 07, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
      3  
      Hey Mrherbert, Don't you dare blame it on Clinton everyone loves him here in Clinton, MD(all faux outrage intended)..Actually I live 5 minutes from where the DC sniper's wife lived.

      Sadly somehow people can sweep their faults under the rug and lie on television. Many groups insulate their audience and then apply an us versus them thinking so they won't believe anyone who says otherwise.

      I remember reading in a book about reaching out to remove the spec from another man's eye while you have a plank in yours....they should be familiar with this except instead of helping their pointing fingers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (January 07, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
      3  
      You know what makes me feel safest of all: living in a country that is so free, a terrorist might take a few of us out once in a while. Recall that if you were alive in 2001, you had a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying in a terrorist attack. That's it. One in 100,000. Lightning would strike you SIXTEEN TIMES before you'd be a fatality in a terrorist attack THAT YEAR. Every year since, the odds are ZERO.

      What an inordinate, disproportionate waste of resources on preventing an anecdotal way to die. Put that $$ into CANCER research. Cancer kills over 500,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. That's 166 9/11 PER YEAR. But nobody's willing to spend a trillion bucks on curing it. Instead, let's spend a trillion simoleons bombing BROWN PEOPLE. Yeah, I feel safer already.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 4:49 pm ET)
          3
        "a terrorist might take a few of us out once in a while"

        And some people say that some on the left aren't serious about fighting terrorism or those engaged in using it to kill Americans.

        Where would they ever get that idea?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (January 07, 2010 5:02 pm ET)
          3  
          You aren't much of a reader, are you, Right Off His Meds?

          While we're wasting trillions on an easily preventable problem (STOP BOMBING BROWN PEOPLE), we could be address illnesses that kill millions of Americans every year. It's called prioritizing. The GOP has no sense of it. Never have, never will.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 5:11 pm ET)
              3
            Well considering you think it's somehow racially driven with something as stupid as "STOP BOMBING BROWN PEOPLE", then skimming your post is tough enough, let alone wading through it slowly.

            You have made your feelings on dealing with terrorism quite clear.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fantagor (January 07, 2010 5:15 pm ET)
              2 1
              My feelings are ultimately unimportant, Rightly Wrong. I'm not in control of squat. So I guess you're just happy as a clam that Obama is continuing to waste billions prosecuting the world's largest and most expensive game of whack-a-mole. Funny how you don't act like it.

              Randy
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 5:24 pm ET)
                1 3
                Well, I trust President Obama to act on threats to this country with the utmost seriousness and priority, and if that means whacking moles then I assume he will do whatever it takes. That is his first priority, to protect the citizens of this country from enemies foreign and domestic.

                I doubt he would see it as just bombing brown people.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fantagor (January 07, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Here's the actual Oath of Office, Right Oaf:

                  I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                  Nowhere in there does it mention keeping us safe, in the safety blanket and pacifier sense that you and the other right wing babies are so smitten with.

                  Randy
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (January 07, 2010 5:15 pm ET)
          3  
          ...And the right is so presumably obsessed with the illusion of "security" that they are willing to sacrifice our precious freedom. The problem is that the Founding Fathers screwed it all up by making the President's Oath about protecting the Constitution first. Where were their priorities?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Samurai Cowboy (January 07, 2010 7:16 pm ET)
          2  
          This leftist is serious about fighting terrorism. I the one the right warns you about. An armed liberal ready to defend my country, but too old and too battered to re-join the military. Patriotism is not confined to the right, but it seems disloyalty is.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Samurai Cowboy (January 07, 2010 5:33 pm ET)
      3  
      Republicans and Bush apologist/water carriers refuse to admit that on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush presidency was officially a failure.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Samurai Cowboy (January 07, 2010 7:11 pm ET)
      2  
      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      Bush failed to do this after 9/11, and allowed the Constitution to be shredded. He and Cheney should have been impeached. They should still stand trial for War Crimes. and War Profiteering.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HotWings (January 07, 2010 7:52 pm ET)
        2
      I have a question for Media Matters. Do you consider the shooting at Fort Hood a terrorist attack?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by vhw28672478 (January 07, 2010 8:01 pm ET)
           
        I say no
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (January 07, 2010 8:10 pm ET)
           
        Why do you care what MMFA considers it?

        I think they are only mentioning the attack in NC because they are counting the Fort Hood one as a terrorist attack.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 08, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
         
      What about the DC sniper? Wasn't that terrorism?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.