Here's what he wrote:

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

Here's the thing, this is one paragraph from his essay and the part that is causing a big stir is the last sentence of this paragraph. If you read it, it's clear what he's saying and who he is refering to. It's a laugh riot that they are focusing on this one sentence in one paragraph and warping it's meaning.

Let's simplify it ok...when he writes this:

 If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

He's refering to these people:

They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved

He's being very specific in who he is talking about. It's not all the victims of 9/11 he's talking about. It's the technocrats that fed and stoked the mighty engine of profit, he's going off about. He doesn't think they are innocent because he writes:

To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants.

Now, you may not like the way he's saying it and you may disagree with the idea that America profits from taking advantage of third world countries and poor people but he is not in any way shape or form stating that all the people that were killed on 9/11 deserved to die.

He's not even saying that the people he's referring to as "little Eichmanns" deserved to die. He's saying, if you read his essay, that after years...decades even...of bombing innocent Iraqis, among others, and profiting from these ventures, while children starved to death, were poisoned by filthy drinking water, or died long slow horrible deaths because the medication they needed was not available to them...that the fact that some of the people who profited from their suffering the most...who participated in these manipulations...and fed the machinery to achieve these goals knowingly...greedily...well, he's asking does not their punishment fit their crimes? He's asking you to consider that point...to think about it...which is what his whole essay is meant to be. It's a jumping off point to get you to consider some things you probably would not or would rather not.

It's not at all about saying "Those people deserved to die!"

To your point about this guy teaching college students...are you saying that you would not want a guy that was totally disgusted by all acts of terrorism teaching in this country? That's where he's coming from. I see all the different reasons there are for going after this guy, they are plain as the nose on your face. One of the big ones...the real juicy ones...is for the right wingnuts to make a big stink about all the "liberal thought" being taught in our schools. Polluting our children with it. What a bunch of bullshit that is.

Last, I read your point about me possibly thinking that everyone who bought into the war with Iraq were idiots...no, I don't think that. How could I think that when our government and media promoted the idea that we had to go there so vigorously? It's only natural that a lot of people bought into that idea. I agree with Eric.

I do think Paula Zahn is an idiot though. But that's just my opinion...and you know what they say about opinions...