I'm wouldn't call it "imprudent." I'd call it "wishful thinking."
The fact is that Islam can co-exist peacefully with other religions. So, ideally, that's what Bush and everyone else should want. But the reality is that in most places on this planet, Islam is anything but peaceful, and it is completely intolerant of other religions. Hell, even within Islam we can see where Sunnis kill Shi'ites, and the Taliban killed everyone who didn't adopt their particular brand of Islam.
I understand what Bush was trying to do. He was trying to characterize the struggle as America versus people who engage in bad behavior. And certainly not every moslem is a terrorist.
Islam could be a peaceful religion theoretically, but it wasn't a theoretical plane that flew into the World Trade Center.
While your statement may be true, it does not follow it is a univeral principle. They seem to be able to co-exist peacefully only when they are in the distinct minority and do not hold the reigns of political power.
Try as I might, I can't think of a single country where Muslims are in the majority that the other religions aren't actively persecuted or at least heavily restricted by law. However, I can think of many countries where other religions, especially Christianity, are in the majority where there is general religious freedom and tolerance, including for Muslims.
Those observations alone should be sending up huge red flags to those who advocate Muslins gain ascendency to the point of political power. When they do, it is usually curtains for the "others".
I understand your point, but I ask you to name three practicing, rational "muslims" who do not support terrorism. The "religion" does not allow for differences of degree. Islam is no more a religion than democracy, or dictatorship, or socialism , or communism.Islam is a governmental policy system utilised by homicidal maniacs.
I am not swayed by ignorant arguments otherwise.