Sarkozy: Netanyahu is a liar.

[Teebs]

BBC

Sarkozy called Israeli PM Netanyahu 'liar'
French President Nicolas Sarkozy (left) and US President Barack Obama in Cannes, 3 Nov 11 The comments - embarrassing for President Sarkozy - have only just emerged
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

G20 agrees to boost IMF resources
US hits Unesco with funding cut
Sarkozy: 'We need timetable on peace'

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.

"I can't stand him anymore, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French.

"You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied.

The exchange at the G20 summit was quoted by a French website, Arret sur Images, and confirmed by other media.

The remarks - during a private conversation - were overheard by a few journalists last week but were not initially reported, the BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says.

Journalists at the bilateral press conference had been handed translation boxes but had been told not to plug in their headphones until the backroom conversation had finished. But those who did heard the revealing comments.

For several days there was media silence in France about the exchange - a decision had been taken not to embarrass the French president, our correspondent says.

A correspondent for Le Monde newspaper referred to the conversation without the quotes.

But Israeli newspapers have reported it in full.

It is said Mr Obama was taking Mr Sarkozy to task for voting in favour of the Palestinian bid for full membership of the UN cultural organisation, Unesco, a bid that was approved despite American opposition.

The remarks indicate a breakdown of trust with the Israeli leader which could have wider implications for the Middle East peace process, our correspondent says.

It's always interesting to see what politicians really think of each other. There's no surprise here, but it does show how Israel's government is successfully alienating erstwhile allies.

[Supreme_Warlord]

It's always interesting to see what politicians really think of each other. There's no surprise here, but it does show how Israel's government is successfully alienating erstwhile allies.

Shame this won't have any worthwhile affect as slavish devotion to Israel requires unconditional support irrespective of "facts on the ground".

[Narkis]

I don't see what's so embarassing for Sarkozy about this. Netanyahu is a liar.

[Stofsk]

Uh it's embarrassing because it was a candid moment between two people who obviously wanted their banter to be private.

[evilsoup]

It's not really an embarrassment for Sarkosy, but I could see this getting played up against Obama by his opponents..

[Shroom Man 777]

Didn't Sarko divorce his wife, marry a new (hot) wife, and go fucking on a yacht after he got elected? I don't think the French would mind him talking shit about the Israeli PM. They're French.

[madd0ct0r]

huh. obama speaks french. didn't know that.

[Rabid]

French aren't really antisemitic (even if some of the sentiment is still there, but no more than anywhere else in Europe), but as far as my personal observations can be trusted, they tend to be generally mildly "irritated" by Israel and its "Bison Stampede in a China Shop" approach to diplomacy and international relations.
So I don't think this is going to harm Sarkozy back home. Indeed, to call a liar a liar and be honest for once may even increase his popularity.

In Obama's case, in the other hand, I don't know. Given what I perceive of the situation in the US, he's a more or less an equal 50/50 chance of being thrown out of office next year anyway.
Slight parenthesis, but wouldn't the Democratic Party have more chances of victory in the next elections by holding new primaries ?

[Lonestar]

The American political establishment is not real big on changing horses mid-stream.

[Stofsk]

@Rabid: I don't think that's very realistic. I think Americans are loathe to hold primary challenges to a sitting incumbent. Hell, I would suggest most western democracies have the same aversion - Julia Gillard, Australia's current PM, is enormously unpopular and I think one of the main reasons why is because of the manner in which she ousted the previous PM. As far as US Presidents go, at the very least, I am unaware of it happening in the past (if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me).

ninja'd by loinstar

[Pelranius]

The only one I can think of is Franklin Pierce, and they really didn't have modern primaries back in 1856.

[Simon_Jester]

Depending on who wins, Obama may have a huge advantage by being able to present himself as the silver-haired Man of Experience (ironic given McCain's arguments against him last year).

To paraphrase: "I'm sorry, Ms. Bachmann, what were you doing back in '09? I've been too busy leading the free world and killing Osama bin Laden to study up on that."

On the other hand, he doesn't have that advantage against Mitt Romney, who many consider to be the most likely candidate by default since most of the other Republican candidates are idiots or lunatics. And he doesn't have much of it against some other possible candidates, like Rick Perry, who's been a governor long enough that accusing him of inexperience with serious management problems isn't going to stick very well.

Even then, though, Obama's got name recognition, and approval ratings about as high as anyone the Democrats are likely to be able to run in his place. It's not like there's a lot of up-and-coming figures in the party that the people are clamoring to replace him with, at least not that I know of.

[Civil War Man]

As far as US Presidents go, at the very least, I am unaware of it happening in the past (if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me).

In 1976 Gerald Ford had a primary challenge from Reagan. Reagan lost the challenge, but obviously came back strong in 1980.
Also in 1980, Jimmy Carter won a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy.

So, it's been done before, but the challenger historically doesn't win the nomination.

[Simon_Jester]

I imagine that primary challenges aren't that uncommon- there's always someone who thinks they'd make a better president, and unless the sitting president is in a really strong position, someone may well try to run against him- though I can't recall any Democrat running against Clinton in '96, or Republican against Bush in '04, which are the examples at least vaguely within my own memory.

(There's always Harold Stassen )

The catch is that, yes, it's very hard for the primary challenger to win, because they have a lot to prove about "I'm better than this guy" before the party is going to seriously consider replacing a candidate with recognition, respect, and a proven track record of having won a presidential election.

[Civil War Man]

Just another note, there were also challenges against Taft in 1912, Truman in 1948, and Bush I in 1992. All three failed.

Another thing of note here is to take a look at those examples.

1912 - Taft wins nomination, loses general election.
1948 - Truman wins nomination, wins general election, but the election was close enough that it produced the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" photo.
1976 - Ford wins nomination, loses general election.
1980 - Carter wins nomination, loses general election.
1992 - Bush wins nomination, loses general election.

So the challenger in primary challenges has historically lost the nomination, but the incumbent tends to lose the general election when they receive a primary challenge. It's not a causal relationship, though, because the incumbent could have lost the general due to the primary challenge (in 1912, Roosevelt ran Bull Moose in the general election and split the Republican vote), or they could have received a primary challenge because of their weak position (see Carter and Ford). But the pattern is still there.

[Teebs]

huh. obama speaks french. didn't know that.

I think the conversation was done using interpreters actually. Apparently that's how it was overheard. Journalists were told not to plug their earpieces into the interpretation circuit until after a certain point but some did so early.

[evilsoup]

^And then sat on the recordings for a week, for some reason.

[Phantasee]

The media were told they couldn't reveal what they had heard other than the official statements. As far as I know there were no recordings, since nobody was expecting it. They ear pieces the media heard it over were for the simultaneous translations.

It's telling that the first to report it were Israeli journalists.

[Ace Pace]

It's telling that the first to report it were Israeli journalists.

The Israeli press is over the top patriotic, but it holds very little back when attacking politicians.