Not really, I take his argument as being a little more than simply at the individual level of morality that you seem to. He's talking about a 'technocratic elite of empire', which is a reference to a certain type of person in the Towers doing certain types of critical functions for empire. And, more important, he's also making an argument about the problem of complicity in that regard *such that* it is not a surprise that actions by such elites would elicit a violent response of the nature delivered on far larger scales around the world by empire.
Now, *that* argument ain't much different from what you just told me you agreed with Bush on, aside from the focus on the elites in the WTC at that time. The difference is that he used insensitive language [even Cockburn and even Churchill says he could have said things better or more clearly], emotional, and not terribly useful to a leftist critique of class relations of power in my opinion, not to mention for the ways in which it can be easily attacked by those who want to take the comments entirely out of context. But pretending that the essay is merely about attacking victims of 911 is deceptive and hardly helpful to figuring out just what is wrong with the framework of analysis that guides Churchill's argument.
I prefer the argument of Burke that Doug cited or Yoshie's critique of Churhill, which are based on a careful reading of what has been written by Churchill. What Cooper has done is just taking out of context what was written and then made irrelevant attacks that provide little alternative to Churchill's framework aside from shrieking "GOD BLESS AMERICA!!".
"Not who I was referring to-- you are the one distorting other peoples positions in your attempt to defend the indefensible."
Gosh, ya'd hardly know that I've criticised the Churchill's argument, without distorting what he said to do that. And the 911 Peaceful Tomorrows folks don't seem to agree with you, they've shown up at ANSWER marches I believe? UPSG has worked with ANSWER also, I guess temporary alliances are possible if you're not inclined to pee in your pants anytime a Bill O'Reilly shouts "ANSWER COMMMIES"...
Steve