Fake News: Wash Post Changes Story on Trump ‘Firing’ D.C. Nat’l Guard General
The Washington Post wrote on Friday that President-elect Donald J. Trump “fired” the commanding General of the D.C. National Guard who is heading up the military presence during the coming inaugural event — in the middle of the oath of office ceremony. Yet a second story on Saturday did not contain the claim.
The Post’s original report set off a wave of stories across the world, causing raised eyebrows over Trump’s “extremely unusual” decision to fire a general in the middle of the presidential oath of office ceremony, especially during these dangerous times.
The paper reported that Major General Errol R. Schwartz, who has commanded the D.C. National Guard since his appointment to the position by George W. Bush, was told to vacate his office the moment Trump says his “I dos” to the oath of office. The decision was presented to readers as unfathomable, if not dangerous, by a president who doesn’t know what he is doing.
In an interview, General Schwartz told the paper that his firing was strange. “The timing is extremely unusual,” the general said.
“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz continued. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” The general added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”
The paper went on to quote Democrat D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson as saying, “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment.”
The paper concluded its speculation, saying, “Schwartz said that he has not been told why he was asked to step down. ‘I’m a soldier,’ he said, noting that he was following orders and has no regrets. ‘I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.'”
An earlier version of the story can still be seen at Stars And Stripes .
The fact is, of course, that the commander of the D.C. National Guard serves at the pleasure of the president and is not put in place by the Pentagon or any of the federal branches of the military.
But the Post’s early reporting on the “firing” of General Schwartz contains no statements from the Trump transition office and also leaves out key points such as the fact that the general of the D.C. National Guard traditionally supplies his letter of resignation to every new president who is about to take office.
Subsequent to the publishing of the paper’s story making Trump appear incompetent, news emerged that the incoming Trump administration offered to let General Schwartz keep his position through inauguration day, but it was the general himself who refused the offer, preferring instead to quit at 12 noon on January 20, the hour Trump takes his oath of office.
The general then ran straight to the media to “argue his case in the press,” as a recent Fox News report noted.
In essence, while the incoming Trump White House did accept General Schwartz’ resignation, it did not “fire him” in “the midst of the presidential ceremony,” as the Washington Post reported on Friday.
Meanwhile, on the day after its initial publication, the Post made material edits to its story. And as of press time, the paper had not added any notice that it had made the alterations.
The current version of the story now on the paper’s website added two important paragraphs that change the flavor of its earlier story.
Among other changes, one of the paragraphs added makes it clear that it is customary for such generals to submit their resignation, and in this case Trump accepted it. The paragraph also tries to cover for the paper’s poor reporting by insisting that the Trump team “provided contradictory versions” of the general’s situation — another fact not in the original story.
Despite its changes, the Washington Post story did not contain the statement — aired by Fox News on Saturday — that the transition had asked the general to stay until inauguration day was over, but it was the general who decided to quit. According to the Fox News report, “It appears the general would rather argue his case in the press.”
Schwartz, who started his Army career in 1976 but has never seen a deployment to a theater of war, was appointed to head the D.C. Guard by George W. Bush in 2008. According to his bio page , he was first commissioned in 1979 and has served his entire career in the D.C. Guard. Schwartz has a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science in Business Management.
This is far from the first time the paper made a big splash with a story only to quietly rewrite it the next day when it found its assertions in question. The Washington Post recently courted charges of “fake news” when it published the shocking story that the Russians hacked and infiltrated the computer systems of a Vermont power plant . By the next day, the paper completely rewrote its story, disavowing that any hack took place.
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
You are extremely confused.
No doubt a result of your constant ingestion of Breitbart and Infowars and
What Does It Mean? 
`
Actually, it wasn't "fake news" insofar that the basic "who, what.when, where and why" happened. What it is, is the story was "misleading." Let's face it, most people do not read past the headline and publishers know this. Consider this fabricated meme that says; Trump Forces Black Family From Home ;
Misleading, eh?
Actually Badfish seeded an article from Infowars that had as the headlines
RIOT STAND DOWN: OBAMA TO FIRE NATIONAL GUARD CHIEF DURING INAUGURATION
Obama Removes Head Of National Guard As Rioters Shift To DC
Outgoing President Obama is reportedly firing the D.C. National Guard chief DURING the inauguration, which could lead to mass riots in D.C. – and threaten the life of President Trump.
Obama is not firing anyone. The head of the DC National Guard and other officials hand in pro forma resignations when a new administration comes into office. It is up to the new administration to accept or reject those resignations.
Obama has nothing to do with it and the Infowars article was a lie.
You missed my point.
He got your point, he's deliberately ignoring it.
If he didn't ignore it the obvious next part of the discussion is how often the liberal side posts up misleading titles also.
Which he could never admit to. (psst, both political sides lie and distort the story to inflame passions)
Yellow journalism is not a province of only one side. (as much as John would like it to be)
Here's your article link from Friday BF . If the Infowars article was accurate, why did you delete it?
RIOT STAND DOWN: OBAMA TO FIRE NATIONAL GUARD CHIEF DURING INAUGURATION Obama's Latest Move Could Trigger Mass Riots, Threats To Trump's Life
By: Walleye Cronkite
On: 01/13/17 06:14:27PM
Alex Jones video promoting the nonsense that appeared in the article BF deleted.
I think the original accusation that obama fired the general and that he did it to foment discord during the inauguration is both fake news and stupid for the reasons given by JR. But there seems to be more to it than that and that's what's confusing.
General Schwartz submitted his resignation, pro forma, like every other obama appointee and trump can accept the resignation or reject it. The Trump transition team does not appear to have had a problem with Schwartz but someone in the army pushed to remove him. As near as I can tell, the trump team asked Schwartz to remain until the end of the inauguration but he refused and, apparently, went to the press (he point of that is unclear). I could be wrong (especially when dealing with Trump) but this could be a strong arm tactic by Schwartz to push trump to reject his resignation entirely (not just extend his termination to the end of the day) or else he makes a public stink by walking off the job. That would be pretty nervy (if true) since trump could remove him in the future anytime he wished to do so. I know Schwartz said that he wouldn't leave in the middle of an event but that's what it looks like he's doing (even though council-member Mendleson seems to think otherwise). It would be nice to get a complete coherent story,