Churchill’s sin was to have claimed that according to American military logic, the World Trade Center was a legitimate target. On the face of it, this is undeniable. I mean, the U.S. bombs countries around the world, blowing up hospitals, schools, factories, people’s homes, office buildings, you name it… all acceptable “collateral damage”. But Manhatten gets whacked and its suddenly considered a war crime worst than Hiroshima and Auschwitz rolled into one. As you can see, i don’t disagree with the gist of what Churchill had to say. I do however disagree with many of the details. The guy writes a well-caffeinated screed, very punk rock, but it’s unfortunate that he can’t add a bit more analysis and take out a bit of the rhetoric. One particularly unfoprtunate phrase was his description of the people in the WTC as being “little Eichmanns” for their roles in the U.S. imperial economy. He has clarified that he meant “just the technocrats”, but i still think he’s off the mark – Eichmann was after all the architect of the Holocaust, not some bit player. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfled – not to mention Dubya – are architects of imperial misery. Clinton and Albright were architects of the starvation blockade against Iraq. Stockbrokers, while certainly the class enemy, are a much less malign order of evil.