I vaguely recall a quote being attributed to Michael Moore after 9/11,
in which he was surprised that the terrorists targeted New York,
because the victims were mostly liberals.  Can you please find a
reliable media source for this quote?  Many thanks!

Hello.

Here's the quote attributed to Michael Moore ("Mike's Message,"
September 12, 2001):

"Many families have been devastated tonight.  This just is not right. 
They did not deserve to die.  If someone did this to get back at Bush,
then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for
him!  Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California
-- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

sources:
AndrewSullivan.com, Tuesday, September 18, 2001
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_09_16_dish_archive.html

FrontPageMagazine.com, March 15, 2002
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3270

The Telegraph,  The importance of being Michael Moore, By Mark Steyn, 29/06/2004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/29/do2902.xml

Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal, Michael Moore, Humbug BY KAY S.
HYMOWITZ, July 28, 2003
http://www.talos.tv/OpinionJournal%20-%20STUPID%20WHITE%20LIES.htm

------

A number of web sites have what is indicated to be Michael Moore's
complete September 12, 2001 message.  See, for example: sfcall.com:
http://www.sfcall.com/issues%202001/9.17.01/cybervoices_9_17_01.htm

--------
search strategy:
"michael moore" people "new york" "september * 2001"
"killing thousands of people who did not vote for him"
"stuck in L.A. with an incredible" "did not vote for"

I hope this helps.

---

Clarification of Answer by juggler-ga on 27 Jul 2004 09:44 PDT

egb:
Thank you for the tip.
-juggler

Thank you for your prompt and informative answer!

ugh...this makes me sick....why would anyone do that to get back at
Bush?  for what?  9/11 had nothing to do with Bush he'd only been in
office for 8 month...did they make mistakes?  did they not take the
threats seriously? Yes...but Clinton didn't do anything either....I
just can't stand everyone slanting all the blame to Bush when he'd
only been in power for 8months after 8 years of Clinton.  It doesn't
matter..if Gore would have one, 9/11 still would have happened and
we'd be
mobbing him now....but i wonder, would Michael Moore been as outspoken
about Gore's "iniqueties".

I agree- it was not in response to Bush specifically, but a pattern of
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in general. To suggest that
terrorists such as these would distinguish between democrat and
republican voters seems ridiculous.

I like Moore and I am no supporter of Bush, but the above comment is
rather ignorant, partisan and polarizing. The vast majority of
democrats did not support pulling U.S. support for Israel, removing
bases from the region or lifting the sanctions on Iraq. To suggest
that Bush and his voters are somehow hated much more than
say...Clinton and his voters, is not much of an argument.

Typical Moore quote.  He uses the sorrow,anguish and pain of others to
push forth a misguided twisted agenda.  Again and again Moore twists
the "facts", takes things out of context, jumps to conclusions, and
all with no remorse about inaccuracies.  The sad part is people who
read or watch his tripe and believe it as if it were the word of a
diety.  Has Bush done everything right?   Certainly not.  In some ways
Moore and Bush are similar - the ends justifies the means.

Let us get back to a more centrist approuch.  I'm tired of the
radicals on both ends of the political or religios spectrum.  They
both are rather narrow minded and wrong.

Conservatives have over-hyped the "inaccuracies" in Moore's work. Of
course it is going to have a slant, but not any more than Hannity or
O'Reilly have slants. I find Moore's observations to be much more
rooted in the "facts" than those two jokers. Why is the left always
held to a journalistic standard of objectivity but these clowns on Fox
News can claim to be "fair and balanced" while spinning everything
with conservative rhetoric.

At least Moore doesn't claim to be completely objective, he has a
perspective and his films are basically feature film editorial pieces.
I don't see anything wrong with a film maker expressing his
interpretation of events and making us all think a bit. It's a
cop-out, however, to just claim that everything Moore says is a lie.
Those on the right should make some substantive arguments against
Moore's message instead of simply slandering and dismissing him.