U R Confused. Reread the stories.
Cut the condescension and read no. 17 and 67 above.
The various news stories are contradictory and confused.
Even the 2009 story says that what was returned was a loaner and that the return came in the waning Bush term.
One of the other stories quoted on this thread says that Obama refused an offer to extend the loan.
What NONE of these stories clarify is
1. when was the original 1965 Lyndon Johnson gift returned? If it was returned during Bush’s term, then there’s no problem with giving back the loaner. If it had not been returned when Obama took office, then his rejection of an extension of the loan is a crime. But we don’t know that, based on these stories.
2. At some point the original was indeed returned because it’s now in the Residence and the loaner, apparently, is in the British Ambassador’s residence.
This points to the return of the original 1965 bust as taking place some time after 2009. If that’s what happened, then I’d be the first to fault Obama for silently using it as a trap to settle scores with his critics from 2009
But reading all the stupid stories, as you condescendingly recommend, does not clarify this.
Until it is clarified, we don’t know exactly what Obama’s crime is. That he’s a criminal and hates the British, I don’t doubt. Exactly what happened with Church’s bust, we don’t know.