PDA

View Full Version : Liberal sites now mislead on Churchill bust issue?



Soflasnapper
07-29-2012, 11:59 AM
I complained and posted in the past about conservative-leaning sites misleading about the circumstances of the returned (from loan) bust of Churchill from the Oval Office.

They got it wrong back at the time, and I think, deliberately so, although people tend to uncritically repeat things they find believable already, so likely some of them were not deliberately lying, just passing on something they did not check.

Now, although most of the liberal-leaning sites knew the factual corrections to the prior story back when it came out from the right (which we know, because they printed the corrected details), some of them now have re-spun the details.

This Washington Monthyly piece, (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_07/the_anticolonialist038860.php) by Ed Kilgore, titled 'The Anti-Colonialist' (making fun of Dinesh D'Souza's book-length thesis), is subheaded on the front page link: 'The bust of Churchill is right where it's supposed to be.'

The new claim, which I've now seen on several sites, is that the bust never went anywhere away from the WH, that it simply went from the Oval Office to the personal quarters, and now sits outside the Treaty Room in the residence floor.

Actually, that is not true. There were two nearly or actually identical busts from the same sculptor, one of which had been in the WH's own collection and in the WH a long time, and the other one in question, on loan from GB to President Bush through to the end of his term of office. That one did leave the WH, and sits in the British US Ambassador's residence in DC, elsewhere.

So why did the left-leaning sites make this new, false claim? (Other than that it is a great looking slam against the prior attack, if it were true, I mean.)

BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE MADE THAT CLAIM THEMSELVES. (Or at least, WH Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer put this on a fact check page on the WH official site's blog area under his signature.)

What did he write?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.

Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room. </div></div> WH blog page, July 27th, here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill)

But what is 100% false is Pfeiffer's denial and claim. Not that there isn't such a bust where he says it is-- that part is true. But that this bust was the bust in question, from the Oval Office? That isn't true.

Pfeiffer himself must have received significant pushback, because here is a non-correction correction that is added as an update at the end.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Update:

Since my post on the fact that the bust of Winston Churchill has remained on display in the White House, despite assertions to the contrary, I have received a bunch of questions -- so let me provide some additional info. The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960’s. At the start of the Bush administration Prime Minister Blair lent President Bush a bust that matched the one in the White House, which was being worked on at the time and was later returned to the residence. The version lent by Prime Minister Blair was displayed by President Bush until the end of his Presidency. On January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day -- all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence. The idea put forward by Charles Krauthammer and others that President Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust because of antipathy towards the British is completely false and an urban legend that continues to circulate to this day. </div></div>

The update provides more accurate information, but does not exactly mention the first part was a lie and misinformation. Pfeiffer acts as if the later update merely adds additional information, rather than contradict his claims entirely.

I resent the first lie, resent the later correction without saying it's a correction and admitting it's a lie, and suggest Mr. Pfeiffer ought to resign unless he makes a mea culpa post and grovels for forgiveness. The president is ultimately responsible for his team and their actions, and he should take strong action to have this record corrected, and discipline Pfeiffer, if not fire him.

The truth should be the coin of the realm. The truth does not need gilding, or clever spin. The truth was sufficient in this case, as Pfeiffer alludes to in his non-correction update. (How much does the president hate Churchill after all if he has the identical bust on prominent display outside the Treaty Room?)

I'm appalled at the left side spinners going along with this (as they surely knew better from the facts brought forward at the time), and it's far worse that it comes from an official WH source. For shame!

I'll note that some of these sites have gotten push back from commenters, who make the point I've made above, but with more sorrow than anger. To no apparent effect (I haven't seen the authors repeating this spin retract anything).

Qtec
07-30-2012, 02:15 AM
The claim from the RW is that Obama walked into the WH and said "get rid of the bust of WC".
If that was true, how come their is still a bust of WC in the WH?

What he siad originally was just clumsy. He clarified in the second his true intention.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The idea</span> put forward by Charles Krauthammer and others that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>President Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust because of antipathy towards the British is completely false</span> and an urban legend that continues to circulate to this day. </div></div>

Just more BS from the RW machine.

Q.......'you didn't build that.'

LWW
07-30-2012, 02:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The claim from the RW is that Obama walked into the WH and said "get rid of the bust of WC".
If that was true, how come their is still a bust of WC in the WH

Q.......'you didn't build that.' </div></div>

If you had read the data, you would know.

Qtec
07-30-2012, 02:33 AM
What,s not to like about WC?

listen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc)


Q

Qtec
07-30-2012, 02:35 AM
I have read the data and I have given my opinion. You now have the chance to do the same, but you don't.

http://www.myessentia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/chicken.jpg

Q

Soflasnapper
07-30-2012, 08:56 AM
His claim was that the bust that had been in the WH Oval Office was the one that now is in the residential quarters outside the Treaty Room. That it had not left the WH, but had been relocated elsewhere in the WH.

That was entirely false, as that other bust is a separate item that was not the one that had been in the Oval Office the prior years in question. What had happened to the bust in question had already been thoroughly reported, which was what caused people to push back on his piece, which was what got him to get slightly more factual while admitting no error or lie, pretending as if the update only added to what he'd said instead of wholly contradicting it.

The WH Communications Director did not phrase it clumsily, he phrased it falsely. And did not admit that transgression against the truth and the facts in his update.

No one should carry water for this guy. He's clearly engaged in exactly the kind of fact twisting we expect from Fox or Limbaugh. We rightly decry it when we find it on the other side. We must decry it here, or we're sliding down that slippery slope to the bottom where they are, ourselves.

llotter
07-30-2012, 11:40 AM
It is difficult to know the truth in most any explanation of The Moron's activities. I tend to believe the original story from the conservatives that he hates Churchill and returned the bust in a fit of rancor because there was no denial at the time. Then, it was later discovered tIhat somewhere deep in storage was a similar bust that was then brought up to the residence area and a story was concocted to make those conservatives look silly.

I don't know if there is any solid evidence that the original bust was only lent for a specific period of time and then must be returned at the end of Bush's term in office, in spite of the claim. It reminds me of the date our troops have to bout of Iraq and The Moron couldn't renegotiate so simply complied. What a pathetic guy in the WH.

Soflasnapper
07-30-2012, 01:33 PM
That it was a loan to W, not a gift to this country, is well established. These things are noted at the time, as gifts to the country belong to the country, and are the subject of the WH Curator's responsibility (to catalogue them, and keep track of them). That it was time delimited to W's term was also the report at the time of the gift in the US and UK press, and since confirmed by official British sources. There is no credible doubt about any of that.

Whether this other bust of Churchill was where it was said to have been all this time is also a matter of public record. All WH pieces of that type are catalogued and their locations recorded.

Either the WH Communications Director decided to go all post-modern, post-truth (i.e., anti-truth), or he is plainly an idiot not to have known these things before he wrote what he posted up on the WH blog as a (phony) fact check item. His walkback was lame, in the extreme.

llotter
07-30-2012, 04:06 PM
Have you heard the WH Curator speak on this subject or seen the public record? I have the distinct feeling that those records will reflect the story the administration want it to reflect.

Soflasnapper
07-30-2012, 09:50 PM
The records of the WH Curator's Office are public record, and subject to FOIA.

I highly doubt there have been any changes, and the presence of the 2nd bust in the WH would show up in the prior administration's Curator's logs and official records, as would the characterization of the Oval Office loaned bust as a loan, and for what period of time.

I'm as conspiratorial minded as most anyone could be, but also I am realistic about opposition research. Which is to say, what you suggest could be the case would show up in the records the GOP can access, and they'd have called it out already, were it true.

Qtec
07-31-2012, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one should carry water for this guy. He's clearly engaged in exactly the kind of fact twisting we expect from Fox </div></div>

Why? There is nothing to cover up. You said it yourself,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What had happened to the bust in question had already been thoroughly reported, </div></div>

But that's not what Krauthammer claimed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.” </div></div>

Its my guess that Pfeiffer didn't know about the bust on loan from the Brits that was returned. His statements make sense if he only thought there was only one bust. The update was posted after he found out the real facts.
There is a difference between being factually wrong and lying.

Anyway, its a storm in a teacup. No big deal.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-31-2012, 09:36 AM
Pfeiffer is a little new, but seriously, if I and millions of people paying attention know the true factual pushback, that he would not know is indefensible incompetence, especially when he publishes his false version on the official WH site on their blog.

Which is why, I suppose, he doesn't cop to ignorance, and 'updates' with a different story that is not the claim he made, and which contradicts the story he put forward.

Even if Krauthammer got it wrong (and he did), you shouldn't have rebuttals that technically get the job done, but are false.

He could have 'refuted' it by saying there never WAS ANY bust of Churchill in the Oval Office, but that would have been false.

Likewise, averring that bust in question went BACK to the residential quarters (no) where it had come from (no), where it sits today (no, that's a different one altogether), is just flat out wrong, regardless of Krauthammer's also false version of the story.

This is an important test case. Do we give passes to lies from our side, because they are our side, and the other side lies a lot? Fighting fire with fire, so to speak?

I hope not. For my part, I reject lying in this fashion, and I urge all to hold up truth as one of the most important guiding values in political discourse. That's a way too flexible attitude about the truth, that discards that value when it's convenient or expedient to lie. That is a very bad policy to hold.

Gayle in MD
07-31-2012, 10:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one should carry water for this guy. He's clearly engaged in exactly the kind of fact twisting we expect from Fox </div></div>

Why? There is nothing to cover up. You said it yourself,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What had happened to the bust in question had already been thoroughly reported, </div></div>

But that's not what Krauthammer claimed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.” </div></div>

Its my guess that Pfeiffer didn't know about the bust on loan from the Brits that was returned. His statements make sense if he only thought there was only one bust. The update was posted after he found out the real facts.
There is a difference between being factually wrong and lying.

Anyway, its a storm in a teacup. No big deal.

Q </div></div>

I totally agree, Q.

What's the big deal?

Sounds like a misunderstanding to me, not like lyng the whole country into a war in order to make your former business cronies wealthier, or outing a cover CIA NOC secret agent!

What did Krauthammer think about those BIG LIES?

He helped to spread them around, carrying water for the worst administration in history, that's what!

This is another non-story, which wouldn't have ever come about without the usual Repiglican Pundits like Krauthammer the beady eyed hate monger, spreading false slander about the president, the usual RW, Without ConscienceLIES, stirring up trouble, compared to a hasty, albeit perhaps incorrect statement about not a whole lot of anything!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Qtec
08-01-2012, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Charles,

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology. There was clearly an internal confusion about the two busts and there was no intention to deceive. I clearly overshot the runway in my post. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The point I was trying to make – <u>under the belief that the Bust in the residence was the one previously in the Oval Office</u>–</span> was that this <u>oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false.</u> The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do. I still think this is an important point and one I wish I had communicated better.

A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation. Having said all that, barring a miracle comeback from the Phillies I would like to see the Nats win a world series even if it comes after my apology

Thanks,

Dan Pfeiffer </div></div>

link (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/31/wh-to-krauthammer-hey-sorry-for-calling-you-a-liar-about-that-churchill-bust-when-you-were-totally-right/)



I think that's exactly what I said.

Q

Qtec
08-01-2012, 05:07 AM
The guy apologised but Krauthammer is still wrong.

Q

Soflasnapper
08-01-2012, 09:14 AM
This is enough for me to accept it.

Krauthammer is owed no apology, as he's quite the spin liar himself and was himself quite wrong in what he said.

To some degree, I understand why Pfeiffer wouldn't want to come out and just admit, on that blog in that update, that he simply blew it, and had no idea what he was talking about. Or, that he had been put on probation and had been sternly admonished by Carney or the Chief of Staff. It would have weakened him in his position.

Still, speaking as Communications Director on the WH website, he speaks for the president, and what he says, and what he gets horribly wrong, reflect on the president.

Had he simply tried to brazen through this, never admit his mistake, and had the WH allowed that, they would have sunk to the levels of Fox and the GOP as to getting things wrong and never correcting them. I had hoped they would be better than that, and that he'd apologize or correct the record himself on his own or under pressure.

I take your and Gayle's reaction to be indifferent as to whether this was done, as it was no big deal, or maybe even to think he shouldn't have made a correction or apology, as if to sink into the pig pen muck with the opposition is a proper communications strategy. As someone once said, it doesn't work, as they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

It was quite important that Pfeiffer do this mea culpa as I had called for, and the truth has been admitted, always a good thing in my view.

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The guy apologised but Krauthammer is still wrong.

Q </div></div>

No he wasn't. So what did he apologize for then?

You just can't help yourself huh?

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is enough for me to accept it.

Krauthammer is owed no apology, as he's quite the spin liar himself and was himself quite wrong in what he said.

To some degree, I understand why Pfeiffer wouldn't want to come out and just admit, on that blog in that update, that he simply blew it, and had no idea what he was talking about. Or, that he had been put on probation and had been sternly admonished by Carney or the Chief of Staff. It would have weakened him in his position.

Still, speaking as Communications Director on the WH website, he speaks for the president, and what he says, and what he gets horribly wrong, reflect on the president.

Had he simply tried to brazen through this, never admit his mistake, and had the WH allowed that, they would have sunk to the levels of Fox and the GOP as to getting things wrong and never correcting them. I had hoped they would be better than that, and that he'd apologize or correct the record himself on his own or under pressure.

I take your and Gayle's reaction to be indifferent as to whether this was done, as it was no big deal, or maybe even to think he shouldn't have made a correction or apology, as if to sink into the pig pen muck with the opposition is a proper communications strategy. As someone once said, it doesn't work, as they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

It was quite important that Pfeiffer do this mea culpa as I had called for, and the truth has been admitted, always a good thing in my view. </div></div>

Krauthammer was correct and owned this administration as well as all of you sycophants. It's great that when questioned the first instinct is to lie about it.....that really should tell people something. But the truly funny part is you all keep trying to save some face - just get over it and move on.

Soflasnapper
08-01-2012, 10:20 AM
You appear unable to read or understand the English language, if that's your take from what I wrote.

I called this guy and his errors out, and called any apologists for him wrong.

Are your tribal instincts so dominant that you cannot accept an ally or agreement on an issue without demeaning such a person as a sycophant? While insisting that the frequent liar Krauthammer was telling the truth?

Pfeiffer wasn't wrong to say K was wrong, but he offered a false reason, since corrected. It's been corrected on the record for years now, which is one of the reasons Pfeiffer's error was so egregious, given his position. It's also a reason Krauthammer's position was a lie.

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You appear unable to read or understand the English language, if that's your take from what I wrote.

I called this guy and his errors out, and called any apologists for him wrong.

Are your tribal instincts so dominant that you cannot accept an ally or agreement on an issue without demeaning such a person as a sycophant? While insisting that the frequent liar Krauthammer was telling the truth?

Pfeiffer wasn't wrong to say K was wrong, but he offered a false reason, since corrected. It's been corrected on the record for years now, which is one of the reasons Pfeiffer's error was so egregious, given his position. It's also a reason Krauthammer's position was a lie. </div></div>

Apparently you have a stick up your ass causing you to see things that aren't there.

You called Krauthammer a liar and said he got it wrong. He is in fact not a liar and has been demonstrably proved to be correct.

Now go get that stick removed so you can focus on at least trying to post something accurate....after learning to read that is.

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 10:27 AM
And on top of this the president was offered by the Brits to keep it and he basically said no thanks. They found it insulting...as they should have.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilega...churchill-bust/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173449/white-house-issues-humiliating-apology-to-charles-krauthammer-over-churchill-bust/)

Here is the full text of Pfeiffer’s mea culpa, published on the White House blog in the form of an open letter to Mr. Krauthammer:

Charles,

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology. There was clearly an internal confusion about the two busts and there was no intention to deceive. I clearly overshot the runway in my post. The point I was trying to make – under the belief that the Bust in the residence was the one previously in the Oval Office– was that this oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false. The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do. I still think this is an important point and one I wish I had communicated better.

A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation. Having said all that, barring a miracle comeback from the Phillies I would like to see the Nats win a world series even if it comes after my apology

Thanks,

Dan Pfeiffer

Soflasnapper
08-01-2012, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You appear unable to read or understand the English language, if that's your take from what I wrote.

I called this guy and his errors out, and called any apologists for him wrong.

Are your tribal instincts so dominant that you cannot accept an ally or agreement on an issue without demeaning such a person as a sycophant? While insisting that the frequent liar Krauthammer was telling the truth?

Pfeiffer wasn't wrong to say K was wrong, but he offered a false reason, since corrected. It's been corrected on the record for years now, which is one of the reasons Pfeiffer's error was so egregious, given his position. It's also a reason Krauthammer's position was a lie. </div></div>

Apparently you have a stick up your ass causing you to see things that aren't there.

You called Krauthammer a liar and said he got it wrong. He is in fact not a liar and has been demonstrably proved to be correct.

Now go get that stick removed so you can focus on at least trying to post something accurate....after learning to read that is. </div></div>

Nicely done, but watch your six.

I didn't make this thread about K, and did not mention him myself in the original post (his name was there, in a quoted passage, but not my emphasis or my commentary). I called out the Obama White House Communication Director Pfeiffer by name, and demanded he set his own falsehoods straight. So that makes me a sycophant? Of whom?

Although you can't see it, it was a hand over the aisle, but your instinct is to spit on the hand or swat it away. Nice, as I say, and I'll also stand by my tribalism characterization of your knee-jerk reaction to attack.

Amply on the record, from the British embassy, is that the original loan was to one president, and the loan was extended upon his re-election, to end in January 2009.

The WH Curator says all such effects of the prior president are removed from the WH by standard policy to be returned to their rightful owners, and the decision to return it was made before Obama took office.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Moreover, White House curator William Allman was quoted in a January 2010 story at CBSNews.com seeming to confirm the (allegedly “100% false”) information.

“Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s,” the story read. “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.”</div></div>

That time frame was confirmed by the London Times, which reported:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Shortly before Mr Obama's inauguration, the Jacob Epstein bronze is understood to have been removed and placed in storage by White House curators. Recent photographs show that a bust of Abraham Lincoln, one of the new President's heroes, has been moved to take the position once occupied by Churchill.

The bronze was lent to George Bush by Tony Blair in 2001 from the Government Art Collection for the duration of his presidency. It is now due to be returned.</div></div>

Quoted by Niles Gardiner in another Telegraph piece (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173136/churchill-bust-debacle-amateurish-obama-white-house-remains-firmly-in-denial/)

So, Krauthammer would have it that Obama intervened to send it back, to 'snub' the British. In fact, he did not intervene to make that happen whatsoever-- what transpired is that he did not intervene to prevent its return already under way by standard operating practice of the WH curator's office, which he emphatically did NOT initiate, but was occurring before he even took office.

That's what Krauthammer mischaracterized, and I will say, lied about. This time, as I will also state he is a gross political liar often. No talking point on his side is too false that he won't repeat it, as he always does.

BTW, we saw how well Romney's pitch that he wouldn't do such a thing went over, over there. The Brits didn't find that especially pleasing, and in fact, crucified him over the raft of gaffes he left in his wake wherever he went and whatever he said.

Including that he'd looked out the asshole of the prime minister. (Looked out the backside of #10 Downey Street). Oh my!

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You appear unable to read or understand the English language, if that's your take from what I wrote.

I called this guy and his errors out, and called any apologists for him wrong.

Are your tribal instincts so dominant that you cannot accept an ally or agreement on an issue without demeaning such a person as a sycophant? While insisting that the frequent liar Krauthammer was telling the truth?

Pfeiffer wasn't wrong to say K was wrong, but he offered a false reason, since corrected. It's been corrected on the record for years now, which is one of the reasons Pfeiffer's error was so egregious, given his position. It's also a reason Krauthammer's position was a lie. </div></div>

Apparently you have a stick up your ass causing you to see things that aren't there.

You called Krauthammer a liar and said he got it wrong. He is in fact not a liar and has been demonstrably proved to be correct.

Now go get that stick removed so you can focus on at least trying to post something accurate....after learning to read that is. </div></div>

Nicely done, but watch your six.

I didn't make this thread about K, and did not mention him myself in the original post (his name was there, in a quoted passage, but not my emphasis or my commentary). I called out the Obama White House Communication Director Pfeiffer by name, and demanded he set his own falsehoods straight. So that makes me a sycophant? Of whom?

Although you can't see it, it was a hand over the aisle, but your instinct is to spit on the hand or swat it away. Nice, as I say, and I'll also stand by my tribalism characterization of your knee-jerk reaction to attack.

Amply on the record, from the British embassy, is that the original loan was to one president, and the loan was extended upon his re-election, to end in January 2009.

The WH Curator says all such effects of the prior president are removed from the WH by standard policy to be returned to their rightful owners, and the decision to return it was made before Obama took office.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Moreover, White House curator William Allman was quoted in a January 2010 story at CBSNews.com seeming to confirm the (allegedly “100% false”) information.

“Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s,” the story read. “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.”</div></div>

That time frame was confirmed by the London Times, which reported:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Shortly before Mr Obama's inauguration, the Jacob Epstein bronze is understood to have been removed and placed in storage by White House curators. Recent photographs show that a bust of Abraham Lincoln, one of the new President's heroes, has been moved to take the position once occupied by Churchill.

The bronze was lent to George Bush by Tony Blair in 2001 from the Government Art Collection for the duration of his presidency. It is now due to be returned.</div></div>

Quoted by Niles Gardiner in another Telegraph piece (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173136/churchill-bust-debacle-amateurish-obama-white-house-remains-firmly-in-denial/)

So, Krauthammer would have it that Obama intervened to send it back, to 'snub' the British. In fact, he did not intervene to make that happen whatsoever-- what transpired is that he did not intervene to prevent its return already under way by standard operating practice of the WH curator's office, which he emphatically did NOT initiate, but was occurring before he even took office.

That's what Krauthammer mischaracterized, and I will say, lied about. This time, as I will also state he is a gross political liar often. No talking point on his side is too false that he won't repeat it, as he always does.

BTW, we saw how well Romney's pitch that he wouldn't do such a thing went over, over there. The Brits didn't find that especially pleasing, and in fact, crucified him over the raft of gaffes he left in his wake wherever he went and whatever he said.

Including that he'd looked out the asshole of the prime minister. (Looked out the backside of #10 Downey Street). Oh my!





</div></div>

That sure is a lot of words.....but does nothing to mitigate your confusion on this issue.

Spin baby spin....

Soflasnapper
08-01-2012, 01:29 PM
The confusion is who did what, when.

Krauthammer and company have it backwards, or at least, not right.

Their story is that after Obama became president, he was offered a new term of loan, and turned that down, himself causing the removal of that bust in a fit of anti-British pique or anti-colonial Kenyan fervor.

The facts are that it was removed according to standard operating procedure on the original schedule, before he even took office, and then learned of a willingness to have the term extended.

He took no action, and instead let the status quo ante process continue to unfold, as per standard operating practice. He showed so little personal pique against Great Britain, and so little anti-colonial Kenyan fervor, that the brother bust, identical to the one in question, remains in a prominent position in the residential quarters (where it was before).

By changing the who, what and when, K has misrepresented the record, essentially turning it on its head.

Qtec
08-01-2012, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And on top of this the president was offered by the Brits to keep it and he basically said no thanks. They found it insulting...as they should have.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilega...churchill-bust/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173449/white-house-issues-humiliating-apology-to-charles-krauthammer-over-churchill-bust/)

Here is the full text of Pfeiffer’s mea culpa, published on the White House blog in the form of an open letter to Mr. Krauthammer:

Charles,

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology. There was clearly an internal confusion about the two busts and there was no intention to deceive. I clearly overshot the runway in my post. The point I was trying to make – under the belief that the Bust in the residence was the one previously in the Oval Office– was that this oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false. The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do. I still think this is an important point and one I wish I had communicated better.

A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation. Having said all that, barring a miracle comeback from the Phillies I would like to see the Nats win a world series even if it comes after my apology

Thanks,

Dan Pfeiffer

</div></div>

If you would actually read posts you would know that I posted this earlier.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And on top of <u>this the president was offered by the Brits to keep it</u> and he basically said no thanks. </div></div>

Prove it.

You can't,....... because the PM of GB cannot give away what is not his!


Q

Q

Qtec
08-02-2012, 03:51 AM
Just read this. Best I've read on this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
When Truth is a Lie
Blog ››› August 1, 2012 2:30 PM EDT ››› ARI RABIN-HAVT
64
Print

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was right to apologize to Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer after he mistakenly chastised the columnist for claiming that a bust of Winston Churchill that sat in the Bush Oval office had been returned to the British government. Contrary to Pfeiffer's claim that it had never left the White House, that bust was indeed returned and a different bust of Churchill that predated both Obama and George W. Bush still resides in the White House.

But the underlying issue at hand is still unresolved. Krauthammer, in a column about Mitt Romney's gaffe-plagued world tour, was lying. And that lie remains uncorrected.<u> Worse yet, Pfeiffer's apology obscured that lie, allowing another trivial yet damaging falsehood about the Obama presidency to elevate into major media, instead of floundering in the swamps of conservative idiocy.</u>

By claiming that "Obama started his presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office," Krauthammer used the Washington Post to further a conspiracy dating back to the days of Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

Obama, the legend goes, ordered the bust of Churchill removed from the Oval Office because he, like his paternal grandfather, whom he never met, had adopted the political leanings of a Kenyan anti-colonialist Mau Mau rebel. Never mind that there is no evidence Obama's family was part of the Mau Mau uprising.

Forget the fact the bust was loaned to the Bush White House and therefore returned as a matter of standard operating procedure, not a slap in the face to the British.

Never mind that the bust was replaced with one of our greatest Republican presidents, Abraham Lincoln.

The bust rumor traveled from right-wing blogs, to Glenn Beck, to then-prospective Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who engaged in this colloquy with a conservative radio host:

HUCKABEE: I would love to know more.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits -</span>

MALZBERG: Of Winston Churchill.

HUCKABEE: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.</span>

While throwing his hat in with the birthers by claiming the president had "grown up in Kenya," which received the most attention and helped torpedo his presidential aspirations, Huckabee's errors begin with the bust.

<u>Conservatives have long refused to debate the president's actual positions, instead relying on a Rorschach test of clues as to his hidden agenda. In the vast majority of cases, the Rosetta stones used to decode Obama's hidden agenda are themselves based on lies.</u>

The tragedy of this most recent exchange between Krauthammer and Pfeiffer is that the Washington Post will see no need to correct what is still an obvious falsehood and others in the media will now accept this farcical rube Goldberg version of history as fact.
</div></div>

I think he nails it.

Q

Gayle in MD
08-02-2012, 08:34 AM
Absolutely!

Just as I would have expected, more Repiglican style slanderous lies, and disgraceful racist behavior.

Repiglicans are poor losers, aside from being losers overall, that is. The real losers are the idiots who continue to vote for them!

G.