Once again, Dear Leader W has left me stumped, and I'm wondering just what the hell he was blathering about

For a quick recap, Before leaving later today on a trip to India & Pakistan, President Jr hosted a White House Meeting with his most ideological brother in arms, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and at one point, Dear Leader was questioned about the Ports Deal that blew up in his face a week ago

One part of his response really stands out though, especially when viewing his exact quote

First, from Forbes via the AP

On another subject, Bush said "my position hasn't changed" on support for transferring control of management of some U.S. port facilities from a British company to a Dubai-based one, despite his administration's agreement to launch a fresh 45-day re-examination of national security issues.

"Please look at the facts," Bush urged Congress, where the deal has drawn substantial bipartisan opposition and skepticism. After his remarks on port security, Bush told the translator not to translate his answer into Italian, unlike his other responses.

I couldn't quite beleive that President Jr actually said out loud NOT to translate his latest public statements about the Port deal for the Head of State standing nearby during a joint press conference

So, I looked it up, and sure enough, he really DID say that publicly, and I'm still trying to figure out what on earth he meant by his justification for such an odd request

Caren.

Q Mr. President, since you're the final arbiter of the Dubai Ports deal, are you still inclined to approve it? And do you stand by your veto threat?

PRESIDENT BUSH: My position hasn't changed to my message to the Congress. And I appreciate the fact that the companies concerned have asked the Congress for a review of all the security implications.

Let me just make something clear to the American people. If there was any doubt in my mind, or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward. And I can understand people's consternation because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security, when, in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security. Our duty is to protect America, and we will protect America.

On the other hand, this company is buying a British company that manages the ports. And by the way, there are a lot of foreign companies managing U.S. ports. And so my question to the members of Congress as they review this matter is, one, please look at the facts. And two, what kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company that has been secure -- been cleared for security purposes from the Arab world? So I look forward to a good, consistent review. You don't need to interpret. That's a U.S. question.

How the hell does "That's a U.S. Question" justify NOT translating the remarks for the Italian Prime Minister?

Does Dear Leader really think that Berlusconi didn't notice something was up when the translation didn't occur?

Is Dear Leader SO thin-skinned at this point that he actually thinks he avoids embarrassment in front of an ally if the ally can't understand the President's answer to a troublesome political problem?

I doubt this will get much attention, but I'd sure like to hear how Dear Leader W justify his insistence that his remarks about the Ports Deal not be translated for the visitng ally standing right next to him in front of the White House Press Corps