If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IF SO, WHAT ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 27, 2012) — On February 2009, both the British and American press reported that the bust of Sir Winston Churchill which had resided in the white House during George W. Bush’s terms in office had been returned to the British Embassy in Washington, DC, a fact that was “confirmed” by the UK Telegraph.
The Telegraph stated at that time:
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.
Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden’s official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.
Well-known pundit Charles Krauthammer commented just yesterday that the bust had been returned to the British Embassy, but Dan Pfeiffer, on the White House blog now states that the “current location” of the bust is “outside the Treaty Room.”
The photographer who allegedly took the photo of Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, Pete Souza, was credited with taking the photo of the “Situation Room” during the bin Laden raid, a photo which was later declared “altered.”
Is the photo of the bust authentic or “computer-generated?”
Why is Dan Pfeiffer insisting that the bust never left the White House grounds when numerous major news outlets, both British and American, reported that it had left?
It was not “Obama’s critics” who published the story about the bust having been removed; it was the mainstream media. Pfeiffer now states that the removal of the bust is a “ridiculous claim.” A link he provides to a story allegedly reporting that the bust had simply been moved to another room leads to a login page. A second link to an article in The Washington Post states that Obama “moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.”
Dan Pfeiffer also claims that Obama’s long-form birth certificate is authentic even though a law enforcement investigation has deemed it a forgery.
Can we believe that anything appearing on the White House website is authentic?
How reliable is he, and how reliable is any photo appearing on the official White House website?
The Post & Email has attempted to contact the British Embassy in Washington, DC, but their phone system has not been responsive. We have therefore sent an email for comment as to where the Churchill bust has been for the last three and one-half years.
If the mainstream reports in February 2009 were inaccurate, why did Pfeiffer not say something then? Why is he directing his comments at Charles Krauthammer, when so many major media are saying the same thing?
Update, July 27, 2012, 5:03 p.m. EDT: Jake Tapper of ABC News is reporting that a representative of the British Embassy has said that there were two busts of Sir Winston Churchill: one given to President Nixon and the other loaned to President George w. Bush. The spokesman called the issue over the bust “a diversion.”
A preliminary look at the Nixon Presidential Library website yields references to Churchill, but not to a bust obtained during those years. An internet search comes up empty, as does a search of the Nixon Foundation website. There is no mention of a bust of Sir Winston Churchill among Nixon’s White House “memorabilia.”
Then all the more reason to ask: Why did Pfeiffer deny Krauthammer’s contention?
Who is lying, and who is telling the truth?
Second Update, July 27, 2012, 5:21 p.m. EDT: The Post & Email received the following email from the British Embassy in Washington, DC: