Obama's Foreign Policy ????

[Trajan]

The original bust of Winston Churchhill, (the one that Tony Blair's loaned bust temporarily replaced while the original was being restored) is currently on display at the White House, and has been since right after Bush left office.

From the White House official site:

Fact Check: The Bust of Winston Churchill | The White House



Facts are such nice things to have when debating. Don't ya think?

I'm happy to provide them when needed .

wrong.......

there are 2 busts,.....the one in the oval office was returned.


White House admits it did return Winston Churchill bust to Britain
Barack Obama's White House has been forced to admit that it did return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to British diplomats, after describing such claims as "100 per cent false".

Aides to Mr Obama were furious after The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that Mitt Romney planned to restore the Jacob Epstein sculpture to its home under George W Bush from 2001 to 2009.

"I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the Republican challenger confirmed at a fund-raiser at London's Mandarin Oriental hotel.

Dan Pfeiffer, the President's communications director, said in a statement that widespread reports of the bust being returned to Britain's embassy in Washington as Mr Obama took office were untrue.

"This is 100 per cent false," Mr Pfeiffer said. "The bust is still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room". Illustrating his statement with a photograph of Mr Obama inspecting it with David Cameron in 2010, he added: "Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again".

British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US. Further inquiries led to the discovery that there are, in fact, two matching Churchill busts by Epstein.

snip-

The one displayed by Mr Bush was indeed returned, along with all other art lent to him, as his presidency came to an end. The other, which remains in the White House residence, was given as a gift to President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 by a group of Atlanticist diplomats and military officers.

more at
White House admits it did return Winston Churchill bust to Britain - Telegraph

Facts are such nice things to have when debating. Don't ya think?

Your post doesn't contradict Vast's.

read Pfeiffers account at the link

 

[Trajan]

wrong.......

there are 2 busts,.....the one in the oval office was returned.

You use the word "wrong" here, but then you don't contradict what I said.

White House admits it did return Winston Churchill bust to Britain Barack Obama's White House has been forced to admit that it did return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to British diplomats, after describing such claims as "100 per cent false".

They were mistaken, because an identical bust sits in the same spot that the Blair one sat.

Pretty easy mistake to make really, considering they're identical.

Aides to Mr Obama were furious after The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that Mitt Romney planned to restore the Jacob Epstein sculpture to its home under George W Bush from 2001 to 2009.

"I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the Republican challenger confirmed at a fund-raiser at London's Mandarin Oriental hotel.

Dan Pfeiffer, the President's communications director, said in a statement that widespread reports of the bust being returned to Britain's embassy in Washington as Mr Obama took office were untrue.

"This is 100 per cent false," Mr Pfeiffer said. "The bust is still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room". Illustrating his statement with a photograph of Mr Obama inspecting it with David Cameron in 2010, he added: "Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again".

British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US. Further inquiries led to the discovery that there are, in fact, two matching Churchill busts by Epstein.

snip-

The one displayed by Mr Bush was indeed returned, along with all other art lent to him, as his presidency came to an end. The other, which remains in the White House residence, was given as a gift to President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 by a group of Atlanticist diplomats and military officers.

more at
White House admits it did return Winston Churchill bust to Britain - Telegraph

Which is exactly what I said.

The Blair bust was given to Bush as a replacement for the other bust.

In the corrected statement on the White House blog, Mr Pfieffer notes that he had originally made a mistake and goes on to say:

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.

Fact Check: The Bust of Winston Churchill | The White House

British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US. Further inquiries led to the discovery that there are, in fact, two matching Churchill busts by Epstein.

adn from pfeiffers link

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

News outlets have debunked this claim time and again. First, back in 2010 the National Journal reported that “the Churchill bust was relocated to a prominent spot in the residence to make room for Abraham Lincoln, a figure from whom the first African-American occupant of the Oval Office might well draw inspiration in difficult times.” And just in case anyone forgot, just last year the AP reported that President Obama “replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.”

there always was one in the treaty room.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow! A sample size of 1,018 people surveyed in the UK! And they correlate that to what the nation thinks. Yeh, very impressive. I think my finger on the pulse is somewhat more reflective of attitudes here than questions asked of a piddling 1000 respondents! And Pew only assesses image relative to general international policy. Ask questions more relevant to the country and likely you could elicit a different response. I know all about research having having come from corporate marketing.

The science of statistics dictates that a population sampling of the size provided can in fact be quite accurate if done correctly.

Do you feel that Pew Polling doesn't know how to take a sample?


And I'm sure that if the correct questions were asked, one could pretty much imply anything they wanted...

Which is, I'm quite sure, why Pew asked such general questions, as opposed to:

"Question 1: Here's a partisan interpretation of something Mr Obama said. Does it piss you off?"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

wrong.......

there are 2 busts,.....the one in the oval office was returned.


White House admits it did return Winston Churchill bust to Britain
Barack Obama's White House has been forced to admit that it did return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to British diplomats, after describing such claims as "100 per cent false".

Aides to Mr Obama were furious after The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that Mitt Romney planned to restore the Jacob Epstein sculpture to its home under George W Bush from 2001 to 2009.

"I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the Republican challenger confirmed at a fund-raiser at London's Mandarin Oriental hotel.

Dan Pfeiffer, the President's communications director, said in a statement that widespread reports of the bust being returned to Britain's embassy in Washington as Mr Obama took office were untrue.

"This is 100 per cent false," Mr Pfeiffer said. "The bust is still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room". Illustrating his statement with a photograph of Mr Obama inspecting it with David Cameron in 2010, he added: "Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again".

British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US. Further inquiries led to the discovery that there are, in fact, two matching Churchill busts by Epstein.

snip-

The one displayed by Mr Bush was indeed returned, along with all other art lent to him, as his presidency came to an end. The other, which remains in the White House residence, was given as a gift to President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 by a group of Atlanticist diplomats and military officers.

more at
White House admits it did return Winston Churchill bust to Britain - Telegraph

Your post doesn't contradict Vast's.

read Pfeiffers account at the link

I've read it.

Your link is spinning the story to be about Pfeiffer "lying" about the bust - instead of the story being about how nonsensical the whole "Obama insulted the British by returning the bust" meme.

But the facts of the story are the same.

1. There has been a bust of Winston Churchill in the White House since the 60s.
2. The bust was being repaired in 2001, so after Sept. 11th, the British government lent Bush another copy of the bust.
3. Bush liked it so much that he requested that it be lent to him for the rest of his term, after the original bust was finished being repaired.
4. When Bush left office, the 2nd bust was returned, along with every other piece of art that Bush had been lent during his term.

The fact that the White House Spokesman confused the two busts isn't the story here.

 

[Vast LWC]

British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US. Further inquiries led to the discovery that there are, in fact, two matching Churchill busts by Epstein.

Yes.

Mr Pfieffer, by his own admission, was mistaken at first, because there was already an exactly identical bust sitting in the place where the Blair bust used to sit.

One would imagine that people would understand that kind of mistake, given that the busts are in fact identical....

After it was realized that a mistake had been made, further research uncovered the fact that Blair's bust had been returned to the British by a grateful White House, after Bush left office, as the original White House bust was no longer being restored.

 

[Jackson]

Fact Check: The Bust of Winston Churchill

The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960’s........The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence.

 

[MeBelle]

Why am I not surprised.

Perhaps because you know he's not going to accept your personal viewpoint, or that of some right-wing blogs and opinion pieces, as fact?

Seeing as how actual polls of Europeans, including the British, tell a completely different story than the one you are painting, I'm thinking that you may in fact be incorrect in your assessment.

And just to make a small point here...
The sources you linked to are
The White House (which way does it lean?)
Pew (which way does it lean?)

In conclusion, discounting anyone's personal experience or links, will definitely end any type of debate.

 

[Colin]

Wow! A sample size of 1,018 people surveyed in the UK! And they correlate that to what the nation thinks. Yeh, very impressive. I think my finger on the pulse is somewhat more reflective of attitudes here than questions asked of a piddling 1000 respondents! And Pew only assesses image relative to general international policy. Ask questions more relevant to the country and likely you could elicit a different response. I know all about research having having come from corporate marketing.

The science of statistics dictates that a population sampling of the size provided can in fact be quite accurate if done correctly.

Do you feel that Pew Polling doesn't know how to take a sample?


And I'm sure that if the correct questions were asked, one could pretty much imply anything they wanted...

Which is, I'm quite sure, why Pew asked such general questions, as opposed to:

"Question 1: Here's a partisan interpretation of something Mr Obama said. Does it piss you off?"

Perhaps questions like 'how do you regard Obama's policy on the Falklands,' would be more appropriate. And on the sample size, well basing general questions against 1000 respondents isn't exactly going to get under the skin of the nation in terms of what they really think. A piddle makes hardly a ripple in the ocean.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wow! A sample size of 1,018 people surveyed in the UK! And they correlate that to what the nation thinks. Yeh, very impressive. I think my finger on the pulse is somewhat more reflective of attitudes here than questions asked of a piddling 1000 respondents! And Pew only assesses image relative to general international policy. Ask questions more relevant to the country and likely you could elicit a different response. I know all about research having having come from corporate marketing.

The science of statistics dictates that a population sampling of the size provided can in fact be quite accurate if done correctly.

Do you feel that Pew Polling doesn't know how to take a sample?


And I'm sure that if the correct questions were asked, one could pretty much imply anything they wanted...

Which is, I'm quite sure, why Pew asked such general questions, as opposed to:

"Question 1: Here's a partisan interpretation of something Mr Obama said. Does it piss you off?"

Perhaps questions like 'how do you regard Obama's policy on the Falklands,' would be more appropriate. And on the sample size, well basing general questions against 1000 respondents isn't exactly going to get under the skin of the nation in terms of what they really think. A piddle makes hardly a ripple in the ocean.

1000 person sample is pretty much standard for polling.

 

[Colin]

The science of statistics dictates that a population sampling of the size provided can in fact be quite accurate if done correctly.

Do you feel that Pew Polling doesn't know how to take a sample?


And I'm sure that if the correct questions were asked, one could pretty much imply anything they wanted...

Which is, I'm quite sure, why Pew asked such general questions, as opposed to:

"Question 1: Here's a partisan interpretation of something Mr Obama said. Does it piss you off?"

Perhaps questions like 'how do you regard Obama's policy on the Falklands,' would be more appropriate. And on the sample size, well basing general questions against 1000 respondents isn't exactly going to get under the skin of the nation in terms of what they really think. A piddle makes hardly a ripple in the ocean.

1000 person sample is pretty much standard for polling.

Given it doesn't reflect reality here, I would dispute that.

 

[Vast LWC]

And just to make a small point here...
The sources you linked to are
The White House (which way does it lean?)
Pew (which way does it lean?)

In conclusion, discounting anyone's personal experience or links, will definitely end any type of debate.

1. The leaning of the White House is not important in the discussion at hand. The records of gifts received and given to various administrations are also a matter of public record.

2. Do you have any data that contradicts the statistics gathered by Pew?
Do you have some refutation of their polling methodology to present to us that invalidates the poll?
Or does your argument consist entirely of "I don't agree with their findings, therefore they are wrong."?

 

[Vast LWC]

Given it doesn't reflect reality here, I would dispute that.

So, the only thing that you need to do is present a poll with data that contradicts the Pew Poll, during the same time period, outside the margin of error... and you'll prove me wrong.

I'm sure you can make that happen.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Perhaps questions like 'how do you regard Obama's policy on the Falklands,' would be more appropriate. And on the sample size, well basing general questions against 1000 respondents isn't exactly going to get under the skin of the nation in terms of what they really think. A piddle makes hardly a ripple in the ocean.

1000 person sample is pretty much standard for polling.

Given it doesn't reflect reality here, I would dispute that.

You're still claiming that your personal opinion represents the whole of Britain more than a standard sample poll does?

Here's an example: The most current polls on RCP, for the 2012 election.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

The sample sizes are all between 700 and 1500. (Keep in mind, the US has a population about 6 times that of England).

 

[Trajan]

Your post doesn't contradict Vast's.

read Pfeiffers account at the link

I've read it.

Your link is spinning the story to be about Pfeiffer "lying" about the bust - instead of the story being about how nonsensical the whole "Obama insulted the British by returning the bust" meme.

But the facts of the story are the same.

1. There has been a bust of Winston Churchill in the White House since the 60s.
2. The bust was being repaired in 2001, so after Sept. 11th, the British government lent Bush another copy of the bust.
3. Bush liked it so much that he requested that it be lent to him for the rest of his term, after the original bust was finished being repaired.
4. When Bush left office, the 2nd bust was returned, along with every other piece of art that Bush had been lent during his term.

The fact that the White House Spokesman confused the two busts isn't the story here.

so a) he returned the bust , it was offered to him to be kept, but he sent it back...b) pfieffer was misinformed when he used that pic of obama showing Cameron the 'bust'

what IS the story?

I inferred nor said anything about disrespect etc...krauthammer said the bust was returned, it was....*shrugs*

here he wrote on this again today;

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/busted-mr-pfeiffer-white-house-blog-article-1.1124986

 

[MeBelle]

And just to make a small point here...
The sources you linked to are
The White House (which way does it lean?)
Pew (which way does it lean?)

In conclusion, discounting anyone's personal experience or links, will definitely end any type of debate.

1. The leaning of the White House is not important in the discussion at hand. The records of gifts received and given to various administrations are also a matter of public record.

2. Do you have any data that contradicts the statistics gathered by Pew?
Do you have some refutation of their polling methodology to present to us that invalidates the poll?
Or does your argument consist entirely of "I don't agree with their findings, therefore they are wrong."?

1. The leaning most certainly does make a difference if you are discounting anyone else for 'their' leaned links, period.

As for the rest, and please pay attention to the bolded part;
a) What point was I trying to make?
b) Where did I make that statement?


To continue in this type of vein, this experiment will fail...which says a lot about us, doesn't it?

 

[MeBelle]

The original topic of this thread is getting derailed...

 

[Colin]

1000 person sample is pretty much standard for polling.

Given it doesn't reflect reality here, I would dispute that.

You're still claiming that your personal opinion represents the whole of Britain more than a standard sample poll does?

Here's an example: The most current polls on RCP, for the 2012 election.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

The sample sizes are all between 700 and 1500. (Keep in mind, the US has a population about 6 times that of England).

Where did I say the whole of Britain. Suggest you re-read the original posts. But I do accept the fact that you like to think you are more au fait with attitudes here than the locals are. Now who was it who said there are lies, damned lies and statistics?

By the way, I thought the research covered Britain. It's somewhat different to just England, but I'm sure you can source some facts or data to dispute that too. Or did you just make an Obama type gaffe. He thinks the Argentinian name for the Falklands is the Maldives.

 

[Vast LWC]

1. The leaning most certainly does make a difference if you are discounting anyone else for 'their' leaned links, period.

On the question of the British bust, I wasn't trying to discredit a link, I was saying that the story was accurate, yet did not contradict my point. Which is why my source didn't matter, because we were saying essentially the same thing.

I was pointing out the reason the event occurred, not contradicting the other poster's assertion.

As for the rest, and please pay attention to the bolded part;
a) What point was I trying to make?
b) Where did I make that statement?

To continue in this type of vein, this experiment will fail...which says a lot about us, doesn't it?

As for the rest. You are correct, I apologize, I misunderstood your intent. My bad.

But I will say that my link presented statistical data only, while the links I was refuting did not present data at all, but opinions of events.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Given it doesn't reflect reality here, I would dispute that.

You're still claiming that your personal opinion represents the whole of Britain more than a standard sample poll does?

Here's an example: The most current polls on RCP, for the 2012 election.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

The sample sizes are all between 700 and 1500. (Keep in mind, the US has a population about 6 times that of England).

Where did I say the whole of Britain. Suggest you re-read the original posts. But I do accept the fact that you like to think you are more au fait with attitudes here than the locals are. Now who was it who said there are lies, damned lies and statistics?

By the way, I thought the research covered Britain. It's somewhat different to just England, but I'm sure you can source some facts or data to dispute that too. Or did you just make an Obama type gaffe. He thinks the Argentinian name for the Falklands is the Maldives.

This is what you said:

Wow! A sample size of 1,018 people surveyed in the UK! And they correlate that to what the nation thinks. Yeh, very impressive. I think my finger on the pulse is somewhat more reflective of attitudes here than questions asked of a piddling 1000 respondents! And Pew only assesses image relative to general international policy. Ask questions more relevant to the country and likely you could elicit a different response. I know all about research having having come from corporate marketing.

As for my typical American confusing of "England" and "Britain", it was nothing more than that.

 

[MeBelle]

1. The leaning most certainly does make a difference if you are discounting anyone else for 'their' leaned links, period.

On the question of the British bust, I wasn't trying to discredit a link, I was saying that the story was accurate, yet did not contradict my point. Which is why my source didn't matter, because we were saying essentially the same thing.

I was pointing out the reason the event occurred, not contradicting the other poster's assertion.

As for the rest, and please pay attention to the bolded part;
a) What point was I trying to make?
b) Where did I make that statement?

To continue in this type of vein, this experiment will fail...which says a lot about us, doesn't it?

As for the rest. You are correct, I apologize, I misunderstood your intent. My bad.

But I will say that my link presented statistical data only, while the links I was refuting did not present data at all, but opinions of events.

Now you're making me tired....

But, I'm with you on the bust!

And Thank You.