Why White House falsely claims Churchill bust not removed...?
jt
2012/07/28 22:55:03
The White House incorrectly claimed that a bust of Winston Churchill was not removed from the White House when President Obama moved in, insisting with emphatic certainty that it had simply been moved to the residence but then retracting the assertion.
In a “Fact Check” post added to the White House website Friday, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer scornfully dismissed as “100% false” the “rumor” that Obama had removed the Churchill bust that had presided over the George W. Bush Oval Office and shipped it back to the British.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/28/wh-incorrectly-cl...A fwd article: -jt
Top Opinion
-
ticia.barnes 2012/07/28 23:09:32
+7Interesting, I read the whole article and it seems that even when he was proven wrong he was completely unable to admit it.
The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
Like a plot twist in a sitcom, IT TURNS OUT THERE ARE TWO CHURCHILL BUSTS!!!!!
The one in the White House residence was a gift to the White House from the British Embassy during the Johnson administration.
The other one was loaned to President George W. Bush by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Says James Barbour, press secretary and head of communications for the British Embassy, “The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W. Bush administration from the U.K.’s government art collection, for the duration of the presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington D.C. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March.”
Indeed. CBS News asked White House curator William Allman about the disposition of the bust in January 2010:
Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s. But the decision to return the Churchill bust to the British – it had been presented by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush on loan – had been made before Obama even arrived.
“It was already scheduled to go back,” Allman said.
"being worked on"... really ???
here's another interesting article on this...check it out...
http://allrightiethen.blogspo...
what precipitated the W/H denial..................
"A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
Obama Returns Churchill Bust To England: British Press Sees Snub
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
Kind of stupid to lie when the whole world can check the facts.
Winston will be back at the White House in January .
Romney promises to bring Churchill bust back to White House
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-5...
So what is really going on here? Jake Tapper at ABC News believes he has solved the mystery:
Like a plot twist in a sitcom, IT TURNS OUT THERE ARE TWO CHURCHILL BUSTS!!!!!
The one in the White House residence was a gift to the White House from the British Embassy during the Johnson administration.
The other one was loaned to President George W. Bush by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Says James Barbour, press secretary and head of communications for the British Embassy, “The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W. Bush administration from the U.K.’s government art collection, for the duration of the presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington D.C. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March.”
Indeed. CBS News asked White House curator William Allman about the disposition of the bust in January 2010:
Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s. But the decision...
So what is really going on here? Jake Tapper at ABC News believes he has solved the mystery:
Like a plot twist in a sitcom, IT TURNS OUT THERE ARE TWO CHURCHILL BUSTS!!!!!
The one in the White House residence was a gift to the White House from the British Embassy during the Johnson administration.
The other one was loaned to President George W. Bush by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Says James Barbour, press secretary and head of communications for the British Embassy, “The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W. Bush administration from the U.K.’s government art collection, for the duration of the presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington D.C. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March.”
Indeed. CBS News asked White House curator William Allman about the disposition of the bust in January 2010:
Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s. But the decision to return the Churchill bust to the British – it had been presented by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush on loan – had been made before Obama even arrived.
“It was already scheduled to go back,” Allman said.
Not going to call him a liar , but , his story is not the same as the facts.