Good analysis of these rabid, fundamentalistic, self-made psychos, AND Bush's public speech.
However, I think that we're always treading on thin ice in analyzing any public speeches given by influential people re what they really think (and, especially, decide) on the basis of what they say. I don't mean they speak with forked tongues just because they may be politicians (professional or de facto [representatives of companies doing PR]), but they know that they must be careful about how they say (and don't say) exactly what referring to whomever. And I don't necessarily mean 'be careful' re 'offending PC sensibilities.' --- Consider Greenspan's latest speech which I really don't think he'd have given any earlier than now, when he's leaving.
Re Bush, I'm sure he's just trying to continually forestall potentially automatic grass-roots ethnic/religious resentment of all Muslims by non-Muslims, especially here in the US. (Not that I think he's great in ANY of his domestic decisions.) Too many of the 'liberalized' Muslims are too quiet re the 'sickos,' granted (but, then so are lawyers about the sleaze ones), but, though all you say I agree with (and realize some 'modern' Muslims wouldn't), I'd think twice about expecting a President to even hint at having the same attitude...even if he actually might.
Christopher Hitchens analyzes this new Bali situation as showing the same thing you argue re the whole 'jihad' mentality, in his "Why Ask Why?" column at...