Your source confirmed what I said...that the bust was lent to Bush, not Obama, and was returned along with all other loaned property, as is usual.
You're ignoring that there were two busts. I don't see how you can so easily ignore undisputed statements from the Brits saying that they, not the curator's office, has at least one of the busts.
I remember this very well. There were indeed two busts, one of which was in the Oval Office. Obama removed it from there, and said it would be returned to the Curator's office. The Brits were miffed by this, and said that if you were going to just stick it back in a storage area, then they'd rather have it back. So, Obama gave it back to the Brits.
Go look at the original linked story. It has a video of
Obama himself explaining why he chose to remove the Churchill bust from the Oval Office. And he didn't say "it was loaned to my predecessor so I couldn't keep it." So to argue that this is just a myth, when Obama himself admitted to/justified his decision, is odd.
The real issue is whether you believe his explanation "I wanted to bring in a bust of MLK and it would have looked too crowded to have both", or whether you think he had an antipathy towards GB and Churchill in particular because of the Mao-Mao rebellion in Kenya. Personally, having seen photos of the Oval Office showing how much space there really is, I think the first explanation was a crock.
