Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a liar, Obama tells Sarko he can't stand him either

[Michael Tee]

The French website ARRETESURIMAGES ("Freeze-Frame") reports on an open-mike gaffe that allowed a private conversation between Sarkozy and Obama to be played into a roomful of reporters, who then agreed amongst themselves to honour the conference's press rules and maintain silence over the incident.  The website is a continuation of a dropped TV show of the same name.  Two paragraphs from the website and my own half-assed translation follow:

Selon nos informations, les deux présidents ont laissé de côté toute retenue à propos du délicat dossier des relations israélo-palestiniennes. Obama a d'abord reproché à Sarkozy de ne pas l'avoir prévenu qu'il allait voter en faveur de l'adhésion de la Palestine à l'Unesco, alors que les Etats-Unis y étaient fermement opposés. La conversation a ensuite dérivé sur Benyamin Nétanyahou, le Premier ministre israélien. Sûrs de ne pas être entendus, les deux présidents se sont lâchés. "Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur", a lancé Sarkozy. "Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours !", a rétorqué Obama, qui a ensuite demandé à Sarkozy d'essayer de convaincre les Palestiniens de mettre la pédale douce sur leur demande d'adhésion à l'ONU.

We hear that the two presidents left aside all their entourage to discuss the sensitive matter of Israeli-Palestinian relations.  Obama first complained to Sarkozy that he had failed to warn him that he was going to vote in favour of the admission of Palestine to UNESCO, when the US was strongly opposed [to it.]  The conversation then turned to Benjamin Netanyah, the Israeli prime minister.  Believing themselves to be in a secure setting, the two Presidents let themselves go.  "I can't stand to look at him, he's a liar," Sarkozy began. "You are sick of him, but I've got to deal with him every day!" Obama replied,  and then asked Sarkozy to try to convince the Palestinians to go slow on their demand to be admitted to the UN.

. . . .

A notre connaissance, ces propos explosifs, dont l'existence ou la teneur nous ont été confirmés par plusieurs journalistes, ne sont pas parus dans la presse (mais ils ont été mentionnés en une phrase sur le blog d'Arnaud Leparmentier, du Monde). Les journalistes présents se sont en effet mis d'accord pour ne pas les exploiter : "Nous n'avons rien enregistré, et les utiliser revenait à reconnaître qu'on avait triché, explique l'un d'eux. De plus, cela aurait gravement mis en difficulté les personnes chargées de l'organisation." Un membre de la hiérarchie d'un média confirme :"Il y a eu des discussions entre les journalistes sur place, qui sont convenus de ne rien en faire. C'est un sujet un peu sensible : il est embêtant de ne pas faire état de ces informations, mais en même temps, nous sommes soumis à des règles déontologiques précises, et diffuser ces phrases revenait à les enfreindre."

As far as we know, these explosive words, which have been confirmed to us by several journalists, either literally or in substance, have not appeared in print (although they were referred to briefly in the blog of Arnaud Leparmentier, of Le Monde.)  The journalists who were present agreed amongst themselves not to take advantage [of the slip-up.]  "We didn't report any of those words and anyone who reported them [now] would be seen as cheating," explains one of them.  A media executive confirms:  "The journalists discussed this amongst themselves at the time, and agreed not to make anything out of it.  It's kind of a sensitive topic:  it sucks that we can't use the information, but at the same time, we agreed to a set of precise, if arbitrary, rules, and the publication of that conversation would amount to a breach of those rules."

[Plane]

  Don't read too much into it.

     Obama being persuasive starts with Obama being agreeable.
     I wouldn't be surprised if a few days later he was cominserateing with Netanyahu about how duplicitous that Sarcosy is.

[sirs]

...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here

[BT]

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

[sirs]

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments

Interesting

[BT]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sarkozy-overheard-telling-obama-that-netanyahu-is-a-liar-expressing-frustration-at-hard-line/2011/11/08/gIQAau6E0M_story.html

The Washington Post is MSM right?

[Plane]

I am trying to remember the last time the Press cut a president this sort of slack.

I can't know when the last time was that they succeeded at hiding something of course, I am trying to remember when the last time was that they were caught assisting a cover up.

[sirs]

The Washington Post is MSM right?

Yea.....and?

[BT]

So that would make reply #2 incorrect?

[sirs]

When you can stop misrepresenting my position on the MSM bias, that even YOU have acknowledged in the past, then perhaps we can address the continued flawed attempts at trying to claim my replies to the bias, as incorrect

[BT]

Are these not your words:
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here

and yet the Washington Post ran a story on it. And you agreed that the Washington Post would be part of the MSM. Ergo you post #2 was incorrect. 

So i don't see how i misrepresented your post. Perhaps you can explain.

And Plane is correct, the story is not that Sarkozy and Obama think Netanyah a pain in the ass, the story is that the international press colluded to attempt to kill a story.

[sirs]

The words you continually omit, despite my ongoing efforts in providing, is that the bias is in the predominance of what's reported vs what's not.  Especially that which is provided very little media scrutiny, when its about Democrats or liberals, compared to if the story were about....ohh, let's say a conservative black man, running for President.  If this were Bush and Netanyahu, caught talking about Sarcozy, it'd be 24/7 news, with no collusion of covering up, in the slighthest

Meaning it's not an all or nothing scenario, where 1 report in 1 MSM outlet, 1 time, or even a couple of times, by a couple of outlets, supposedly debunks my position.  That's what you keep misrepresenting, over, and over, and over again, by citing "a" report in the MSM.

So please, stop it

[BT]

...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here

The words you continually omit, despite my ongoing efforts in providing, is that the bias is in the predominance of what's reported vs what's not.

So you are saying you omitted words.

Which is much different than me omitting words

[sirs]

No, I don't find it necessary to restate my specific parameters of MSM bias, every damn time a reference to MSM bias is brought up, when you know damn well what I've meant from the beginning

So, as I said, please stop it now     

[BT]

No, I don't find it necessary to restate my specific parameters of MSM bias, every damn time a reference to MSM bias is brought up, when you know damn well what I've meant from the beginning

And i don't think it necessary to link an article from every card carrying member of the MSM to show that in this specific case the MSM was in fact reporting the story. Which was the point of the link and my verification that the Washington Post was current in their dues.

You just got it wrong. no biggie.