Well, only Michael Cerularius was excommunicated, and he excommunicated only the papal legates, including Cardinal Humbert. There is doubt about the validity of the first excommunication, since the Pope had died before it was issued by the legates. So it was a whole bunch of nothing, hot air between two hotheads. Of course, it later took on a symbolic significance, and Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras "rescinded" the excommunications in 1965.
In answer to your question, Prodromas, there is not much of a cottage industry of Catholic arguments against Orthodoxy because we do not tend to define ourselves against Orthodoxy. The big difference, to us, is Orthodox failure to recognize papal primacy, something we believe was mutually recognized before the schism. That is something we would insist on for reunion. We would also insist that the Orthodox churches affirm that Catholicism is not in heresy. We certainly have very little problem with Orthodox theology and practice---read John Paul II's encyclical Orientale Lumen
("Light of the East") to see that---the exceptions would include the acceptance of divorce and remarriage and softening of the stance on artificial birth control.
Outside of that, if you want a perspective of somebody who chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy, here is one: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
There is also James Likoudis, the prominent (and controversial, from the Orthodox perspective) convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism:http://credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm
The apologist Dave Armstrong also has numerous articles about Orthodoxy. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
Keep in mind this is apologetics, not measured scholarly discussion.