Congressional Candidate (D) is gay and using “DADT” for personal gains and political

[COSPRINGS]

First, check out this video. It is off a CNN interview of Mr. Anthony Woods, who is running in a special election to win a seat in Congress. Notice the total lack of any tough questions and the segment is clearly meant to show him that he was harmed by an unjust system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkvzgh7ib3A

However, lets review the situation.

The US Military sent Woods to attend the Kennedy School of Government to obtain a Master in Public Policy (MPP). The MPP program is a two-year program. Currently, Harvard estimates the costs of attending the program for one year to be $66,610 for direct and indirect costs. The complete program, using the current estimate, would be a total cost of $133,220. Woods graduated from the program in the summer of 2008.

Military students incur a three for one active service obligation for time spent pursuing a Master’s Degree. In other words, for every one day spent at Harvard, under normal circumstances, Woods would have had to serve in the Army three days. However, shortly after completion from the MPP program, Woods reported to his supervisor that he was gay. Despite his stated desire to return to serving his country, the military discharged him the following December with an honorable discharge. Woods had to repay $35,000 to the government.

However, this is much less than the cost of the two year program, which is currently estimated to be $133,220 for direct and indirect costs. In addition, this does not take into account his Army salary and housing benefits, worth an estimated $80,000 a year or around $160,000 for his complete time at Harvard.Moreover, Woods would have received federal benefits, such as free health care and federal leave days, during his two years.

This is in addition to the fact that the Army sends limited number of students to this program. Woods was on a path to becoming a professor at the United States Military Academy. The Academy has limited number of slots to send future professors to the Harvard program. In effect, Woods going through the complete program, deprived another officer of the opportunity to obtain a MPP from Harvard and deprived cadets at the United States Military Academy of a professor with a MPP from Harvard.


Why not a question. "Mr Woods, you only had to pay the Army back $35K. You went for two years, while making 80K a year and had federal benefits. Did you use the system or was your timing just very good?"

[GA_LP]

Sounds like he was practicing to be a Congresscritter.

[COSPRINGS]

Sounds like he was practicing to be a Congresscritter.

Itss the media that gets me

[COSPRINGS]

Bump because I think this could be an interesting thread

[goeagles]

There's nothing wrong with Brown's interview.
There's a lot that's wrong with "Don't ask, don't tell."
It's unjust and inhumane, and a gross waste of talent, in so many cases like this.
Thank God the President is committed to tossing it.
I hope he sticks by his guns.

[COSPRINGS]

There's nothing wrong with Brown's interview.
There's a lot that's wrong with "Don't ask, don't tell."
It's unjust and inhumane, and a gross waste of talent, in so many cases like this.
Thank God the President is committed to tossing it.
I hope he sticks by his guns.

First I don't disagree. DADT isn't a good policy, in my view. However, Woods is running for office. For the sake of democracy, he needs tough questions.

[goeagles]

First I don't disagree. DADT isn't a good policy, in my view. However, Woods is running for office. For the sake of democracy, he needs tough questions.
But the story wasn't about his try for Congress.
What tough questions would you have had her ask?

[COSPRINGS]

But the story wasn't about his try for Congress.
What tough questions would you have had her ask?

First it was mentioned. Second, the question that should have been answered should have been about timing.

"Mr. Woods, at what point did you decide you couldn't stay in the Army under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy? The timing of your disclosure, seems to be very advantageous to yourself. The Army just finished paying you for two years and also paying for Harvard. You do have to pay back $35K, but this seems to be a small amount."

Next,

"Mr. Woods, you worked for both President Obama Campaign and had a political job with Gov. Paterson, of NY, while on Active Duty. Are either one of those actions against any DOD regulations?"


Two questions. Instead you get a love session.

[goeagles]

First it was mentioned. Second, the question that should have been answered should have been about timing.

"Mr. Woods, at what point did you decide you couldn't stay in the Army under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy? The timing of your disclosure, seems to be very advantageous to yourself. The Army just finished paying you for two years and also paying for Harvard. You do have to pay back $35K, but this seems to be a small amount."

Next,

"Mr. Woods, you worked for both President Obama Campaign and had a political job with Gov. Paterson, of NY, while on Active Duty. Are either one of those actions against any DOD regulations?"


Two questions. Instead you get a love session.
The problem with both your questions is that they are not questions, but accusations.
You'd be basically accusing him of ripping off the Army, and of violating DOD regs.
Nobody in the military has suggested either one.
Asking him at what point he decided, and why, would be proper.
But you'd have to strip away the accusatory rhetoric for the question to be acceptable in a professional news interview.

[COSPRINGS]

The problem with both your questions is that they are not questions, but accusations.
You'd be basically accusing him of ripping off the Army, and of violating DOD regs.
Since no military authority has suggested any such thing, both questions would have been improper in a professional interview setting.

Actually, members of the military and former co-workers have. Moreover, are either untrue?

[PredFan]

He should have to pay back the entire tuition. Period.

[goeagles]

Actually, members of the military and former co-workers have. Moreover, are either untrue?
I have no idea.
If the military justice system thought there was a problem, I'm sure they would have pursued it.
Since they did not, the accusations by these "members of the military and former co-workers" are nothing more than hearsay.

[AvgGuyIA]

He just figured out a way to get the taxpayers to pay for his Harvard education. He should pay back all he was given.

[COSPRINGS]

I have no idea.
If the military justice system thought there was a problem, I'm sure they would have pursued it.
Since they did not, the accusations by these "members of the military and former co-workers" are nothing more than hearsay.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/01/anthony-woods-taking-stand?page=1


Ms. Traxler,

You’re right: the Army is totally to blame for providing him the opportunity to go to Harvard — an oportunity which, ironically, probably would not have come were it not for his affiliation with the Army to begin with. This is a travesty: taxpayer dollars gave him a $35K education and then he conviently decides after his degree completion to announce that his sexual preference — knowing full well where it would lead. I have no problem with his sexuality; however, I do have a big problem with his timing. I am in a state of disbelief that Harvard Magazine has the wherewithal and utter ignorance to condemn the Army for someone who is exploiting the system — and getting away with it. God forbid we question someone who has two Iraq deployments under his belt for impure motives. It is amazing to me that his having worn the uniform for four years of active duty somehow gives him unquestionable credibility and integrity and that his actions are beyond reproach.

-Todd Hertling, an active duty Army captain who served with Mr. Woods, who served two tours in Iraq, and who also went to grad school to earn an MPA and made the decision to serve back his time to the Army honorably rather than get over on the American taxpayer

~Todd Hertling


and


I find the timing of Woods’ announcement to be very coincidental. Most readers don’t realize that CPT Woods received full pay and benefits while attending Harvard, in addition to the $35,000 in tuition. This means that on top of the tuition he was receiving a salary of approximately $85,000 a year before taxes. Also notice that Woods is only required to repay $35,000 for his education. Attending the Harvard Kennedy School would cost the average graduate student much more. The greatly reduced tuition and fees resulted from a break provided to Woods by Harvard because he was an active duty Army officer.

This article is also, likely, revealing of his dual-employment as illegal. If Woods worked in Governor Patterson’s office before he was discharged he should face punishment both for receiving a second paycheck and working for a political party. (DoD Directive 1344.10 bans active-duty service members from running for office, participating in partisan political management, or campaigns).

Woods should consider himself very lucky to only have to repay the $35,000.

~Anonymous Vet

This isn't an issue of USMJ. This is an issue of, what is the media bias AND should this man be in office?

[COSPRINGS]

He just figured out a way to get the taxpayers to pay for his Harvard education. He should pay back all he was given.

Won't happen. But he should at least be questioned about it.

[COSPRINGS]

bump

[COSPRINGS]

One more bump... see if anyone is interested in something besides the Civil war

[ChaosControl]

What's wrong with DADT? Why the hell does someone need to announce to the world that they're a ***?

[COSPRINGS]

What's wrong with DADT? Why the hell does someone need to announce to the world that they're a ***?

I really don't see the need for a policies concerning sexuality in UCMJ. The only exception would be sleeping with another serve members wife. It would be a change for the military, but I think it is a change that i needed, in my view. The military needs to reflect the values of a society it serves.

However, this is not the issue here. The issue is using the system.