Ok. Now let me get this straight. Chiraq is more than happy to purchase/accept bribes of oil from Muslim countries, sell legal/illegal arms to Muslim countries, demand to be allowed contract bids for the rebuilding of Iraq, and tell the U.S. how we should or should not have conducted/are conducting military strength in Muslim countries; and yet when it comes down to the wire, Chiraq doesn't want a Muslim country in the EU. Very interesting.
Chirac never said he doesn't want a Muslim country in the EU, and he's not opposed to Turkish membership.

The EU has strict membership rules, and those rules need to be met before any country can enter. Turkey does NOT meet these rules (yet) - human rights is one of the bigger issues. Turkey, according to Chirac, "does have a European vocation, but the rules for its entry to the EU have not yet been met", and "has always been associated with European civilisation and was an important and loyal member of the Atlantic alliance."
The decision will be made later this year, and whatever is decided then (by the rules) will be law.

In 2002, Turkey aggressively campaigned for potential member status (backed by the US), which they received.
The campaigning was never seen before, and highly unlikely: usually, countries don't campaign for membership. They either get in, or they don't, as decided by the rules.

After the 2002 campaign, Brussels and Ankara signed a formal agreement, stating that there would be no repeat of such campaigning. Agreed was that the rules decide whether Turkey gets to join or not, not a nice campaign. If the conditions are met, Turkey will get to join, plain and simple.
Bush's comments could be seen as such campaigning, and I think Chirac hit the nail on the head by comparing it to Europe telling the US how to take care of their Mexican relations. Or Europe telling the US that it should make Canada its 51st state, if you want... none of their business, and uncalled for.