I understand the liberal logic but I disagree with it. The Imams were free to take or not take the money. If they took the money to write positive press from a hated President Bush then that is not only hypocritical but also heinous. If the Imams were paid for press they agreed with, then it was a good days work earning money. Now we are talking “Imams” here. “Imam” meaning religious leader, not your typical (Joe) Yusef greed. I mean the religion of peace would not exploit their fellow religionist for money to convince them of something they do not believe in, would they?

As for I.anklam, what are you smoking? The liberal press tends to be anti-Israel in America not pro-Israel. That takes care of the Zionist charge.

“American newspapers are well known to all, be controlled by the same Zionists who direct our President.  The American Free Press is not controlled by the “Masters of Deceit”.  We must leave Iraq and cut the umbilical cord to Israel in order to obtain world peace.”

To answer your questions, Theway2k, I don’t think the article is calling the Imams hypocrites.  It is calling the US government hypocritical for violating one of it’s most sacred principles, that of the free press.  Feeding money to influence opinion pretty much guarantees that the press will not be free.  It will always be controlled by well funded interests with agendas.  I can’t say that the NYT has always acted in the best interest of it’s readership without any influence of money, but that is what the article is pointing out.

I don’t see the problem. If America actually has Sunni Imams writing positive articles this is a plus. So what if they are compensated. Is the NYT saying the Imams are Muslim hypocrites? Is the NYT implying it is wrong to get positive words in print about American soldiers just because it is on the American buck? Maybe the NYT wants some of that government money for printing their propaganda, is the NYT jealous?