For what it's worth, a couple things leap out at me in the article. First, the strange tendency many on the Left have of pointing to the Bush administration's use of the Imam as some sort of infallible sign that he must be OK. Since the Left has placed undying faith in the Bush administration's decisions, don't you know.
Second, I'm troubled by the Imam's statements. It reflects this 'half off picture' that Islam has been since 9/11 - iinsisting Muslims are against terrorism, but not really doing much about it (again, until the terrorism seemed to be killing more Muslims than anyone). Yet turning out by the zillions when a Danish paper publishes a picture. Or things like the Imam's statements about the bombing of Hiroshima, that this was a 'Christian act'. Should we assume everything ever done by any Islamic nation or culture is therefore an Islamic act? The fact that almost all Muslims I have heard interviewed insinuate 'true Islam is peace while true Christianity is mass murder' perspective is a big reason that I have problems with many Islamic movements in the world, beyond the beef with the 9/11 Mosque.
When I hear more, of for that matter any, Muslim leaders and representatives say 'we realize not everything done by the West is the result of Christianity, and acknowledge that Islam itself has been a cause of much suffering and violence in history', then I'll say it's time to talk. Till then, I remember that Jesus said turn the other cheek, not bend over and spread them.