So far, Poputonian at Digby's Hullabaloo offers the best analysis of why the statement from Bush is so divorced from the reality of the actual situation.
He uses the history of the British misunderstanding of what motivated the American Indians to attack the British in an apparenlty coordinated set of attacks in what seemed to them to be the request of the French. What really was happening was that the American Indians were revolting against the expansion of the North American settlers and the conquist of the previously Indian land, and the only connection to the French was that the Indians wanted the support of another relativley benign European nation against the British. The Indians knew who their enemy was (the British) and did not need French guidance to direct the revolution.
Read the Poputonian's post at Digby to get a really good explanation of how Bush is misreading the situation. The historic example is very good.