no revenge for 2 weeks!

how pissed am i?

pretty pissed.

because?

i read this at 'the hollywood reporter'.

i have waited and waited for 'revenge' to air a new episode. wednesday, it finally did. and it was a great episode. but that article tells us that it won't air next week. we have to wait 2 weeks.

i cannot believe the way they're jerking us around.

this is insane and it's going to run off viewers.

you try to build momentum. not kill it off.

i am so in love with this show but i'm really starting to remember how pissed i was last year when abc gave the axe to 'brothers & sisters.'

that network needs to get its act together.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, February 17, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, hours are spent searching a few Camp Ashraf residents, State of Law takes to the airwaves to attack Tareq al-Hashemi and the country's Constitution, and more. If you're one of the many who've thought so much of the US coverage of Iraq in the last years has been sub-standard, you found out why today on The Diane Rehm Show. Anthony Shadid has died. He was an award winning writer for the Washington Post and then he (and his wife) moved over to the New York Times. At the Post, there was an effort to impose some journalistic guidelines on the writing and he chafed at that. The Times gave him free reign and that was not anything good. I've noted my opinion of his feature writing passed off as hard news reporting. And he, many times, made his clear his opinion of my critique. I had no plans to mention him or his writing today. (He died in Syria from an asthma attack that people are assuming was brought on by exposure to animals -- horses -- on the part of the people smuggling him in and out of Syria.) But there was Diane Rehm and her guests David Ignatius (Washington Post), Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) and James Kitridge (National Journal) describing what made Shadid -- in their opinion -- a great reporter. I'm sorry but that's not reporting. It's travel writing. It's feature writing. It's not reporting. David Ignatius: What I would say about Anthony -- and Nancy and James also knew him -- is that he really represented the thing that makes great journalism special. Uh, he had a way of grasping not the facts but the essence of the story. Yes, David's correct. And Shadid would have made a great novelist. But that's not what makes a great reporter. A great reporter grasps the facts. "It was magical story teling," said Nancy Youssef. It was. It was the novelization of the news which is to reporting what novelizations of films are to movies. They're similar, they're just not the same. "You know to me his-his articles were almost love letters about the people he was writing about," gushed Nancy. Again, you're not describing a reporter. And that goes to why the news is so awful today. Whether it's Iraq or any other topic. The industry doesn't even embrace reporting. They want to be something else. And in the process, they are dumbing down America. This is Bob Somerby's criticism, the heart of his criticism. He momentarily caught up in the 'framing' 'issue -- an early '00 hula hoop -- briefly. But it's the novelization of the news -- news for people who can't process news. It goes beyond the crimes of narrative and hook. It's why Gail Collins is a columnist. They won't cover the facts, they won't stick to whether something's legal or not, they want to give you the 'essence.' They want to give you subjective because it's so much easier to produce and so much quicker to produce. (Anthony Shadid, to be fair, had a real talent for novelization. He truly would have made a great novelist. And as feature writing, some of his 'hard news' reports are amazing examples of style and even insight. But it's not news and that's only more obvious when he moves to the New York Times.) And the proof of that is in the coverage of Shadid's death which is not news, which treats him as though he's Whitney Houston or some other celebrity and refuses to offer an honest appraisal of his strengths and weaknesses. Why else cover a reporter? And the fact that the news industry goes into hype mode ('greatest foreign correspondent of his generation') goes to the tawdry excess that has for too long passed as hard news. What should have been a private moment is turned into a media event. It's the novelization, not actual news, bad writing that seizes on a partial quote to 'illuminate' -- not a full quote because a full quote actually rejects what the writer is trying to novelize. The public -- as well as the news industry -- would be a lot better off if the press realized that you can't distill the essence and instead started covering that which is observable and verifiable in the physical world? And for those who will whine this was so unfair, oh heavens, clutch the pearls. I didn't set out to write about Shadid today. I focused on other things. But we didn't get Iraq on The Diane Rehm Show's international hour. We did get testimonials to Shadid. And those who aren't functioning adults and don't grasp that blind praise isn't how we evaluate should take comfort in the fact that I avoided writing at length about the obvious point: 'Shadid was a wonderful person.' A great reporter? When Sy Hersh dies, people will point to stories he wrote, stories he broke. The same with Carl Bernstein, the same with Robin Wright, Ned Parker, Sabrina Tavernise, Alexandra Zavis, Nancy A. Youssef and many others. Whether it's The Diane Rehm Show, The Takeaway or the multitude of programs covering Shadid's death today, no one could point to any news. Because feature writing isn't news writing. If I wanted to be mean, I would've opened with that point and expanded on it for several paragraphs. I listened to The Diane Rehm Show because, with David on as a guest, I thought (wrongly) we might actually hear something about Iraq. You know their Vice President is in the news cycle. That's actual news. And it matters a great deal on the international scene. It certainly matters to the Iranian government which is why the Iranian media has been all over the story. There's the Press TV article declaring, "The Supreme Judicial Council said on Thursday al-Hashemi and his employees were behind years of deadly terror operations against security officials and civilians in Iraq." And of course they rushed to put on MP Saad al-Mutallibi (link is text and video) from the rival State of Law political slate who declared: Because this is the independent, one hundred percent independent justice system, speaking on its behalf, and representing itself and putting forward the accusations and the implication of Mr. Al Hashemi to 150 terrorist attacks against the nation of Iraq against individuals, against the police forces, against the army, against national institutions and of tremendous, as I said, consequences, with direct implication from Mr. al-Hashemi. This would put a tremendous pressure, I believe, on the Kurds to take the right decision and probably surrender him to Baghdad to face trial. Unless of course he escapes the country as the other terrorists have done and spend the rest of his life in exile. There is no way that this matter could be resolved politically. The Voice of Russia reports Tareq al-Hashemi declared he may leave the country. And why not? It's not just State of Law using the meida to convict him. It's also the so-called independent judiciary of Iraq. Nine judges with the Iraqi Supreme Court issued a finding that Tareq al-Hashemi is guilty. There was no trial. And yet the Supreme Court issued a finding. It is the Supreme Court because they used the Supreme Court spokersperson (Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar) for their press conference and because, as the BBC notes, the nine-member review was "set up by the Supreme Judicial Council." Tareq al-Hashemi is an Iraqi citizen and, as such, the Constitution (Article 19) guarantees he is innocent unless convicted in a court of law. There has been no trial. The judiciary has not just overstepped their bounds, they have also violated the Constitution. Lower courts hearing the case in Iraq now will know the feeling of the Supreme Court (which can overrule them) and that could influence a verdict. So, no, he cannot receive a fair trial now. Also at issue is Judge Saad al-Lami. Al Mada notes he can't stop whining about alleged threats against him from Tareq al-Hashemi's supporters and how al-Hashemi publicly named him. And whine on. He did this at the press conference. Is he a judge or not? That's not the behavior of someone reserving judgment. That's the behavior of someone with a conflict of interest. Along with being very anti-Sunni (Tareq al-Hashemi is a member of Iraqiya and he is also a Sunni), the judge also has problems with Iraqiya. Just a little while ago, AFP was reporting on that judge, how he was demanding that Iraqiya MP Haidar al-Mullah lose his immunity so he (the judge) could sue him: Abdelsattar Birakdar, spokesman of the Higher Judicial Council, said Mullah was accused of having offended Judge Saad al-Lami in a late November interview. Lami filed a complaint, after which a court "studied the case and then issued an arrest warrant against him and sent a request to parliament to lift his immunity in order to prosecute him," Birakdar said. Mullah said Lami was "influenced by Maliki." (If that link doesn't work, click here for the AFP article.) That's one of the 9 'objective' members of the court who decided Tareq al-Hashemi's guilt -- despite 'forgetting' to provide him with a trial. Turning to the issue of Camp Ashraf, Victoria Nuland, US State Dept spokesperson, issued the following statement yesterday: The United States continues to pursue a peaceful, humane solution to the untenable situation at Camp Ashraf. The critical next step is the voluntary movement of the first group of 400 Ashraf residents to the new transit facility at Camp Hurriya (former Camp Liberty). The United States supports the UN's call for the Iraqi Government and the residents of Camp Ashraf to continue to cooperate and begin this movement peacefully and without delay. Once the first group arrives at Hurriya, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) can immediately begin verification and refugee status determinations, a necessary step for Hurriya residents to safely depart Iraq. On January 31, following successful work by the Government of Iraq, the UNHCR and UN Human Rights Office in Baghdad determined that the infrastructure and facilities at Camp Hurriya are in accordance with international humanitarian standards for refugees, as required by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the United Nations and Government of Iraq last December 25. Secretary Clinton, joining European Union High Representative Ashton, has publicly supported this MOU, which fully respects the sovereignty of Iraq. The United States welcomes the Iraqi Government's continued cooperation with the UN; urges the Iraqi government to fulfill all its responsibilities, especially the elements of the MOU that provide for the safety and security of Ashraf's residents; and calls on the leaders at Camp Ashraf to cooperate with Iraqi authorities and the UN to make this and all further stages of the relocation successful. The United States urges this voluntary movement to Hurriya to begin on schedule February 17. The U.S. will not walk away from the people at Camp Hurriya. We will visit Hurriya regularly and frequently, and continue to work with the UN to support their temporary relocation and subsequent peaceful and secure resettlement outside of Iraq, consistent with our respect for Iraq's sovereignty and in accord with Iraq's responsibilities for their humane treatment and security. Camp Ashraf? Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." Howard Dean is the former Governor of Vermont and a peace candidate in the 2004 race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. More recently he was Chair of the Democratic National Committee (2005 - 2009). Today Ellen Ratner interviewed him for Talk Radio News Service (link is audio -- and Ellen is the sister of Michael Ratner). Excerpt. Ellen Ratner: I'm here with Governor Dean and, Governor Dean, you are really interested in the situation in Iraq. Howard Dean: Right. As we have pulled out, there are 3400 unarmed Iranian dissidents who've been living in Iraq for about 25 years. And we promised to defend them when we disarmed them and then we left them high and dry. And Prime Minister Maliki, at the bidding of the Iranian government. went in and killed 47 of them. Unarmed. These are people who voluntarily disarmed and who the FBI has screened to make sure none of them are terrorists. And we need to get them out of there. So what I'm involved with -- with a number of both Democratic and Republican ex-officials -- is trying to get these people off the American terrorist list -- which they don't belong on and which they've been removed from other lists under threat of law and our courts have also told the State Dept they didn't belong on the terrrorist list -- so they can be moved to another country so they don't get killed basically. Shot. They're unarmed. We promised to defend them. We haven't done that. We're trying to move them out so we can -- so we can save their lives Ellen Ratner: Well this is really interesting because of course America wants to keep it's promises. How did you personally get involved in this Governor Dean? Howard Dean: I got invited to go give a speech to this group and of course about a year ago I saw them on the terrorist list so I had a lot of qualms. Then I saw the other people who were speaking including people like Jim Jones who was a former security advisor to President Obama, Mike Mukasey a former federal judge who was the Attorney General under Bush, Tom Ridge -- Honeland Security under Bush who I served with as governor when he was governor of Pennsylvania, Patrick Kennedy, Bill Richardson -- former Ambassador to the UN. And I thought: If these people are all involved with this, this can't be crazy. So I went over there, I met them, I heard their stories. And basically this is a group that was disarmed by the United States. They were the guests of Saddam Hussein because they were against the mullahs in Iran. and during the Iraq-Iran war of course, Saddam Hussein wanted anybody who was against Iran. But of course after Saddam was done in, they had no further role. They converted to a democratic opposition and disarmed and we promised to protect them. And I just think we ought to keep our promises any part in allowing genocide by an army that we trained and armed which is the army of Iraq. Ellen Ratner: Well governor you and Governor and Secretary Tom Ridge are both involved in this. Have you been able to move this at all? Is our government responding? Howard Dean: Well they are responding but it is very slow going. There's lots of discussions, negotiations, and, of course, they responded late. But today is the day that these first 400 of these folks are supposed to be moving to an interim camp. Now the problem with this interim camp is it's more like a prison than a camp. But we are very hopeful that the State Dept -- which I think is beginning to work hard on this problem -- we'll get these folks out of here and this will be a transient cetner which is what it's supposed to be. Ellen Ratner: And two questions -- just foreign policy questions dealing this group. How do they relate to the government of Iraq right now? And what is the government of Iran trying to do to them? Howard Dean: The government of Iran is trying to kill them and unfortunately the government of Iraq essentially works for the government of Iran. They've been in there twice and killed 47 of them who were unarmed already. So the problem here is that we are not working with a friendly government. Maliki is not our friend. He's a puppet of the Iranians. And he's a big problem for us. And, of course, all of which I predicted eight years ago when I was running for president, that this would be the end of the Iraq War, that we'd make Iran much stronger, which is exactly what we've done. Ellen Ratner: You certainly did predict it, Governor. Howard Dean: And it's a very difficult situation. And, unfortunately, we delayed so we don't have as much leverage as we did when we had troops on the ground. AFP adds, "The European Union called on Iraqi authorities yesterday to guarantee the security of an Iranian opposition group transferring to a new camp near Baghdad." Ashish Kumar Sen (Washington Times) speaks to one of the 400 being moved, Bahzad Saffari, who states, "[The Iraqi authorities] are creating problems. The process has been painfully slow. We are expecting things to be much worse." AFP adds, "Behzad Saffari, the legal adviser for residents of the camp, told AFP by telephone that the searches began around 2:00 pm (1100 GMT), and that more than 300 people had been searched as of 10:30 pm (1930 GMT). It was not clear when they would depart the camp." Violence continued in Iraq. Reuters notes a Hawija sticky bombing which injured on person, a Khalis attack which claimed the life of 1 police officer and, dropping back to Thursday night for the last two, 2 police officers were killed in a Baghdad attack and 1 police officer was killed and so was his driver. Meanwhile Lynn Hermann (Digital Journal) observes: Even with American troops reportedly no longer stationed in Iraq, the Pentagon has submitted a brand new budget request of $2.9 billion for post-operation "activities" in the war-torn nation. After the U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq was completed in December, a new budget request by the Pentagon, called Post-Operation NEW DAWN (OND)/Iraq Activities (pdf), comes at a time when it has been reported there are no longer any U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. The new budget request likely includes a "black" budget for special operations forces still conducting business there. Noting Greg Miller's Washington Post report from last week, Adil E. Shamoo (Baltimore Sun) adds: The second report, in the Post, informs us that the U.S. is significantly ramping up the number of CIA personnel and covert Special Operations forces in order to make up for reducing the American military and diplomatic footprint. These added covert personnel will be distributed in safe houses in urban centers all across the country. This represents a new way to exert U.S. power, but it is betting on the Iraqis not noticing the increased covert personnel. Really? This is a bad decision as it contradicts the reasons for the decision to reduce embassy staff. The Iraqis have suffered for nine years as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation. The economic, educational and political systems in Iraq have been destroyed. Sectarianism, contrary to the belief of many in the U.S., has become the order of the day since the invasion. A significant percentage of Iraqis do not like us and do not want us to stay in Iraq. No Iraqi politicians want to openly be identified as pro-American. Animosity toward the U.S. is on the rise because of the heavy U.S. presence in Iraq. Our projects in Iraq function to serve our interests, such as building and training security forces to keep the Iraqis in check (building the infrastructure for the promotion of democracy has taken a back seat). We have made sure that Iraq, for the foreseeable future, will depend on us for security equipment and spare parts, heavy industrial machinery, and banking. We built Iraq's security forces but made sure it has no air force. And the half-hearted democracy we built is a shambles; graft and corruption are still rampant. Maj Troy Gilbert died in combat in the Iraq War. A small amount of tissue was found in his plane after it crashed. His body was carried off by assailants who would use it a year later in a propaganda video. His family was informed that any search for him was off, that the small amount of tissue discovered in the plane meant that he wasn't classified as found. His widow Ginger Gilbert Ravella told Brian New (KENS 5 -- link has text and video) earlier this month, "Someday my five kids are going to ask me, 'Did you do everything, did the government do everything to bring Daddy home?' I want to be able answer I did and they did absolutely everything." New notes, "During a 2006 mission near Baghdad, Maj.Gilbert was credited with saving twenty Americans under fire when he destroyed a gun truck from his F-16 jet. The Air Force pilot then turned around to attack another truck when the tail of his plane hit the ground." Jim Douglas (WFAA -- link is text and video) spoke with the parents Ronnie and Kaye Gilbert who explained that they were scheduled to meet with the Defense Dept later this month where they will attempt to convince the military to change the qualification from "body accounted for." The Gilbert family (his parents, his sister and his wife -- among others) had waited and been patient. Informed that there would be no search for their loved one, they did something very smart this month, they took the issue public, shocking the nation in the process, a nation that only the month before had heard US President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address, pontificate about how the military leaves no comrade behind. The family went public ahead of their February 24th DoD meeting. The Pentagon wants to defuse a public relations nightmare before that meeting takes place. Luis Martinez (ABC News) reports: An Air Force official said Thursday that Air Force Secretary Michael Donley agreed with the family that the search for the rest of Gilbert's remains should resume. According to the official, Donley sent a letter to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy requesting an "exception to policy" so that the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) could "assume a proactive pursuit of Major Gilbert's remains and to bring the fullest possible accounting of his remains." Donley's request must still be approved by the Under Secretary. And approving a request doesn't necessarily mean that serious efforts will be made as many families from previous wars can attest. The reality is the American government did nothing for years. [Major Gilbert died in 2006.] There's a strong chance that when the media runs with "DoD wants to help," DoD goes back to ignoring the issue. Honoring our Nation's fallen overseas has been our purpose since the Commission's creation in 1923. We perform this mission by commemorating service and sacrifice worldwide -- at sites entrusted to our care by the American people. It is our responsibility to honor America's war dead and missing in action, where they have served overseas. That's former US Senator Max Cleland, Vietnam veteran, speaking before Congress yesterday. US House Rep Jon Runyan chaired the House Veterans Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing Cleland was speaking before. Chair Jon Runyan noted the National Cemetery Administration, specifically a problem at the Fot Sam Houston National Cemetery which had a row of head stones misaligned. Runyan reviewed that the families of the fallen were informed and that an audit of the national cemeteries to find out if there were others with those problems and five were quickly found while the audit was still in its first phase. Where were the mistakes coming from? The work being done by outside contractors. Runyan explained "The reason this is relevant to a budget hearing is because in most cases the contractors' work was approved and payment made without adequate oversight or review to ensure the quality and accuracy of the work done. Because of an omission of fiscal oversight the work has to be done right the second time and a nationwide audit at great expense conducted." On the subject of oversight, US forces still have one Missing in Action service member in Iraq. Matthew M. Burke (Stars and Stripes) reports on the only person classified MIA from the current Iraq War, Staff Sgt Ahmed Altaie: The Iraqi-born reservist from Michigan was abducted more than five years ago in Baghdad after breaking the rules and sneaking outside the wire to meet his Iraqi wife. In the days after he went missing, 3,000 coalition soldiers conducted more than 50 raids to find their comrade. At least one soldier was killed; others were wounded. As the trail turned cold, Altaie's family and friends grew frustrated by what they say is the U.S. government's lack of effort to find him. "They won't talk about it," Altaie's ex-wife and self-described best friend, Linda Racey, said from Michigan recently. "They feel he's not worth looking for. They're not doing anything." Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Friday, February 17th, 2012 CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 MONDAY: Murray in Olympia to Hear frm Veterans (Washington, D.C.) -- On Monday, February 20th, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local Olympia veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C. WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray Local veterans WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray WHEN: Monday, February 20th, 2012 2:30 PM PT WHERE: Harbor Wholesale Foods 3901 Hogum Bay Rd. NE Lacey, WA 98516 Map ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray iraq abc news luis martinez the independent record sanjay talwani stars and stripes matthew m. burke the washington post greg miller bbc news al mada

revenge: the 'omg' show

omg.

i swear 'omg' has to have been invented just for abc's 'revenge.'

did you see it last night?

if not, stop reading and start streaming.

omg.

was that not just an amazing episode?

so 1st off, who broke into emily's beach house and stole the box she kept all her information in about her real father (david clark) and her real childhood (she was amanda clark) and her revenge lists for the people who framed her father and put in prison for terrorism?

tyler.

remember tyler?

daniel's friend.

honestly, i thought tyler wanted to sleep with daniel and my only disappointment when tyler got hauled off by his brother and the police a few episodes back (when he tried to kill emily and daniel at the birthday dinner for daniel) was that he didn't at least kiss daniel.

tyler did make out with nolan of course. twice, i believe. but he clearly had the hots for daniel. and i kind of think daniel did for him at 1 point. but i digress.

so it's tyler.

he has the box.

he also has amanda. (who's really emily. remember they switched after reform school.)

emily finds that out when they try to locate amanda (when she and nolan try).

ty wants money. lots of money. at 1st he's talking about killing but now he says he wants money.

amanda meets him, handcuffs him and goes to the trunk to verify her box is there. she leaves her gun in the trunk and walks back over. okay, she's got her box, but where's amanda, he promised to let amanda go.

amanda's behind her. and pissed.

tyler's told her that emily framed her for the fire on that writer's home and that emily kept messages from jack from her and all this other stuff.

she has turned on emily.

they leave and emily - i don't think - even has her box.

tyler wants amanda to go to the engagement party with him. (daniel and emily's engagement.) and he leaves her alone with a dress.

meanwhile jack hears from a priest in haiti and decides to go there and help out for a few months. he tells declan (his brother). he and nolan then go over to emily's with sammy. sammy always wants to be around emily (because she's amanda and sammy was her dog when she was a little girl) so jack wants to leave sammy with her.

amanda agrees. she wishes him well and tells nolan to go with him and make sure he leaves so he's safe.

william devane tells charlotte she can't go to therapy. if she goes to therapy and talks about how she, a grayson, is actually the daughter of david clark the terrorist, it could hurt the family. (remember, she just learned that her father was really david last episode.)

she's got jack's pills from when he got beaten up (by victoria's goons) and she's popping them and drinking like crazy.

william devane is playing conrad grayson's father. i forget his character's name. he meets with daniel (who lets it slip about his sister's plans to see a therapist) and tells him he needs daniel to step up. for starters, meet with a japanese client. (it's the man emily knows.)

daniel does and tells the japanese man he's going to ask his fiancee (emily) to leave with him tonight for paris. emily calls the japanese man and he sends her call to voice mail.

conrad tells victoria she can get market value for the stocks but he's not giving her the stocks. he will give her the deed to the beach house. she says she will make the divorce very messy and very public. now that he's exposed to charlotte that he's not her father, he's got nothing on victoria. he tells her that his father wants them to have a low key divorce.

victoria: 'you may have to answer him but i don't. and if it takes bloodying you on wall street, so be it.'

but later victoria agrees to sign the papers. what conrad doesn't know is that she's got the s.e.c. number and intends to bring grayson industries down.

daniel and victoria speak at the party. she tells him that emily won't want to leave for paris. how does she know? because emily's ambitious, victoria says, just like she was. and that means, victoria says, that emily's really wanting to marry a grayson and live the grayson life style.

the japanese man gives emily a box and tells her to bury it (it has something to do with her past - it's wrapped and has a ribbon on it).

she goes down the beach to do that, leaving the party.

then daniel shows up and tells her they should leave for paris.

she says they can't run from their problems.

they fight (waspy -fight) and she asks him if victoria's been talking about her?

he says she was and implies that his mother was right. (victoria's daniel's mother.)

tyler tells amanda she has to go to the party with him or he's going to kill her. she doesn't want to go. his plan is to kill daniel with emily's gun and frame her for it.

why?

because she killed frank and framed him.

frank, you may remember, was the grayson's security guy. he was also victoria's spy and very fond of her. when emily exposed him to conrad (conrad got a video, he didn't know who it was from) as threatening and then pushing lydia off the roof (lydia was victoria's best friend and conrad's lover - she's still alive but not on the show), he fired frank.

frank told victoria he was going to prove his loyalty to her.

he went off in search of the truth about emily. he found amanda at the strip joint. she agreed to answer questions about emily. they left the club. in the parking lot, amanda killed frank with a pipe.

amanda called emily, they arranged to move the body and they set tyler up planting frank's phone on tyler.

now amanda's hearing this and knowing that she's the 1 who killed frank.

she hits him with the dress hanger, runs off with him shooting at her.

she ends up at jack's dock. he's leaving on the boat. she tells him she loves him and asks to go to haiti with him. she promises she'll never leave him. honk-honk. it's the cab that delivered her. still waiting. she needs money for the cab. he gives it to her. after she's off the boat, he wipes his hand that was on amanda and sees blood.

she's bleeding.

(he doesn't know how but clearly it was from tyler's gun shots.)

he goes running up the dock as she's telling the driver to pull off. jack hops in his jeep and chases after her.

she ends up at the beach.

tyler corners daniel on the beach.

he's got the gun. he tells tyler that emily has lied to him over and over.

and that's all we see of their conversation really. we don't know if he told daniel the truth about emily.

emily gets a text. it's daniel asking her to meet him on the beach (the text is really from tyler).

jack arrives as gun shots go off on the beach. he runs and finds the man dead. and amanda over the body with a gun. he tells her to leave, take his jeep and go.

declan and charlotte flee the engagement party to run down the beach and go skinny dipping. jack hears them and drags the body into the weeds.

while he's hiding, a cell phone on the body goes off.

declan and charlotte see him and get out of the water and start getting dressed. declan's yelling at the 'peeping tom' and advancing on him. jack runs off.

declan finds the body.

victoria asks emily 'where the hell' her son it?

charlotte runs in screaming about daniel.

every 1 goes running out on the beach.

victoria runs to the body screaming and crying.

she lifts her son's head ... it's tyler.

daniel emerges with blood all over the front of his shirt.

victoria's thrilled that he's alive and hugs him.

he says something like, 'mom ...' and she stops him. her eyes dart around at every 1 looking. 'don't say anything,' she hisses. obviously afraid he's about to confess in front of witnesses that he killed tyler.

and that's it except amanda can't get jack's car started (she can't find the keys) so she hitches a ride with the japanese man.

it was 1 'omg' moment after another.

go stream it already.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, February 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the political crisis continues, another prep meeting for a national conference is scheduled for this weekend, Tareq al-Hashemi turns out to have been right about the Baghdad judiciary, US Senator Patty Murry gives an important speech about veterans, veterans groups wonder where the budget money goes, and more. Big news out of Iraq today and apparently it's so big that the press can't handle it. Doubt it? Here's Sinan Salaheddin and Lara Jakes (AP) reporting, "An Iraqi judicial panel said Thursday the country's Sunni vice president and his employees ran death squads that killed security officials and Shiite pilgrims. The findings offer the first independent assessment of accusations that have thrown the nation into political chaos and threaten to re-ignite sectarian tensions." Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) misses it too. Here's al-Salhy's opening, "A panel of Iraqi judges detailed Thursday 150 attacks they said were carried out by death squadsunder the command of Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, in accusations likely to reignite political conflict." What follows is how the announcement could have been covered: IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary. BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism. Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day. Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial. Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary. Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial. Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq. This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today. A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held. Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made. Get it? You can't be the judiciary and declare -- before a trial -- that someone is guilty. Tareq al-Hashemi is absolutely correct. He has been proven to be correct. Whether he was or was not guilty isn't an issue because there's been no trial yet. But what is known is that the judiciary has already issued a finding of guilt before a trial took place. There is no reputable legal organization in the world that would support Nouri's argument that al-Hashemi can have a fair trial in Baghdad. The court's own actions have demonstrated that will not be the case. The Iraqi Constitution is very clear on this point -- and it's really past time that Iraqi officials started following their Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The judiciary chose to skip the trial and just declare him guilty. They violated their own Constitution. They didn't hem and haw and treat it like an indictment where they found cause to hold a hearing. No, they declared him guilty. That is in violation of the Iraq Constitution. If they had a functioning Parliament, Iraq should be moving to impeach everyone of those nine judgesand remove them from the bench. Clearly, they do not understand the Constitution that they are supposed to be interpreting. Article 19th's fifth clause is very clear: "The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial. The accused may not be tried on the same crimefora second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced." The judiciary issued a finding today publicly declaring Tareq al-Hashemi guilty. In doing so, they violated his right to a fair legal trial and if they'll violate his legal rights -- a vice president of Iraq -- they'll violate any Iraqis legal rights. Today the judiciary of Iraq has given the Iraq legal system a black eye. We're being very remedial and highly redundant in an attempt to make clear that what just took place demonstrates that Tareq al-Hashemi cannot have a fair trial in Baghdad. There are other points that can be made -- Mike made some this afternoon including that the judiciary releases their finding and provides no evidence -- but in terms of the news value of these events, the news value is that Tareq al-Hashemi's repeated assertions that he would not receive a fair trial in Baghdad have been proven to be correct as evidenced by the fact that, without a trial -- without even a defense, nine members of the Baghdad judiciary have declared him guilty. So what's going on Iraq? How did a vice president (now in his second term) end up charged with terrorism? Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) offers a few clues. From the opening summary: Within days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocratic country governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i tragets reminiscent of the worst days of 2006. But there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of 2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous powers comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon, Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart. To conservatives in the United States, particularly the architects of the war and of the ensuing state-building exercise, the crisis into which Iraq plunged after the U.S. withdrawal was final proof of the ineptitude of the Obama administration in failing to secure an agreement with Maliki that would have allowed a residual U.S. force to stay. But the lesson is more sobering: Iraq demonstrates the resilience of domestic political forces in the face of even an eight-year occupation, thus the futility of nation-building and political engineering efforts conducted from the outside. The U.S. occupation tried to superimpose on Iraq a set of political rules that did not reflect either the dominant culture or the power relations among political forces. And while cultures and power relations are not immutable, they do not change on demand to accomodate the goals of outsiders. For the second timethe 2003 U.S. intervention brought down Saddam Hussein and his regime, Iraq is facing a real threat of political disintegration. In 2007, the United States held the country together forcibly, but the infusion of new troops could not secure a lasting agreement among Iraqis. This time, the outcome depends on whether the political factions that dominate Iraq and tear it apart find it in their interest to forge a real compromise or conclude that they would benefit more from going in separate directions. Whether you accept their conclusions or not, the observations should make you wonder if the US is effectively using money in Iraq with the 'diplomatic' brigade or if more US taxpayer money is being wasted? Al Mada reports State of Law MP Salman al-Musahwi states that the issue of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq will be discussed but outside of the national conference in a side meeting between State of Law and Iraqiya. Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Iraqiya bloc MP Itab al-Douri stressed today that both cases of vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi and deputy premier Saleh al-Mutlaq will be within the discussions of next Sunday national conference preparatory meeting." Al Sabbah reports that the next prep meeting is supposed to take place Sunday and that one of the goals is to resolve the written plans various blocs have put forward. Kitabat notes that there's a climate of fear taking hold in Iraq as it appears that Nouri is building a dictatorship. In other political news, Parliament is supposed to review the case of Sabir al-Issawi, Mayor of Baghdad, today. Al Sabaah reports they are supposed to consider whether or not to withdraw confidence in him. Kitabat explains State of Law's Shiran Waeli has brought forward charges of financial and administrative corruption. Parliamentary sources tell Kitabat that Parliament is expected to vote in favor of keeping al-Issawi on as mayor. On the potential targeting of politicians, Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Legal expert Tariq Harb said today that lifting immunity against the MP should be done with the majority of votes, pointing out the formation of a committee to lift the immunity is illegal and intervention in the judicial system." Lastly, CNN is reporting, "A leader of an exiled Iranian opposition group said Thursday that members living in a long-standing camp in Iraq are ready to begin moving to a new temporary site, under a plan agreed to with the United Nations." Small protests took place in January and early February of last year in Iraq. February 25th, however, marked the national protests around the country with an emphasis on Baghdad's Tahrir Square and Friday protests have followed since. The anniversary is coming up. As plans are underway to observe that anniversary, Al Mada reports that Zuhair Muhsin -- member of Parliament's Human Rights Commission -- is calling for peaceful events and for no one to distrupt the work of the government. Muhsin states the hope that all Iraqis are aware of their right to demonstrate in a peaceful manner. Iraq Detainees notes that there will be a protest Friday, February 24th at 2:00 pm in front of the Iraqi consulate in Frankfurt, Germany to note the firt year anniversary of the February 25th protests. This will be a protest against corruption and wrongful arrests, against stealing food from the people, against the international intervention in Iraqi affairs, against the puppet government, a protest to support human rights and the rights of all Iraqis. Violence continued today. Reuters notes a Baghdad attack in which two police officers were left injured, a Baquba raodside bombing which claimed the life of a shop owner (shop sold mobile phones) and, dropping back to last night, 2 Ramadi roadside bombings left six people injured. In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the first panel of the Wednesday House Veteran s Affairs Committee hearing. Last night, Kat offered her thoughts on the first panel in "Like Corrine Brown's grandmother's sweet potato pie." The hearing was about the 2013 budget and two panels appeared before the Committee. The first panel was Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki (with the VA's Robert Petzel, Allison Hickey, Steve Muro, Roger Baker and Todd Grams). Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake, VFW's Ramond Kelley, Disabled American Veterans' Jeff Hall, AMVETS Diane Zumatto and the American Legion's Timothy Tetz. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the Committee, US House Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member. We'll emphasize some remarks regarding budget concerns. Carl Blake: [. . .] What is more troubling to me is the discussion that I believe you raised, Mr. Chairman, this excess of resources that apparently they have identified to the tune of approximately $3 billion in 2012, about $2 billion I think they say in 2013. It sort of begs the question: How has the administration determined that they have $3 billion too much for 2012 when we have seven months of this fiscal year still to finish? If they came back after the fact and said we have all this extra money, that would be one thing. But in midstream, it is certainly a concern for us. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't necessarily be realized but it's certainly a concern. They identify health care services, in particular, which is a big chunk of it, they identify long-term care. I wonder, where are those savings for long-term care? Does that mean that there are fewer veterans taking advantage of VA's long-term health care programs? This given the fact that the veterans population is actually aging? So we have some concerns about that. And the fact that they don't even meet what they're mandated to meet as far as their capacity requirement for long-term care. We also have concerns about this roller coaster ride of medical care collection estimates. I would note that two yars ago, the Fiscal Year 2012 collections estimate was $3.7 billion. Last year, when they submitted the 2012 budget, it was revised to 3.1 billion. And I would note that this year's budget's estimate now shows that there are 2.7 billion so that's a one billion dollar change over the course of the last two years and I understand there are factors that play into those changes but the fact is that that difference in resources which they factor into their ability to provide services has to have some sort of an impact on the delivery of services in a timely fashion and quality services to veterans. So I think those things need to be teased out. I go back to the excess resources they have as important as I would consider that issue, I think that there would be more than a couple of bulleted points in a four-volume document explaining that. That might be the most important fact that they outline in their entire budget cause that certainly has an impact on everything going forward. So we certainly hope that the Committee will pursue that and the VA will come forward with more information about it. Lastly, I would direct my comments towards the 2014 advance appropriation. While the -- while the independent budget does not offer specific budget recommendations for that for any number of reasons, a couple of things that jump out at me about the 2014 recommendation, given our concerns about whether 2013 is actually a sufficient budget put forward, it could arguably be a fairly small increase for 2014. Additionally, they predict a very huge jump in medical support and compliance over previous years' funding. I would point out that I believe that's a part of the administrative arm of the medical side of the VA so that would certainly give us pause. At the same time, there's an even larger decrease projected for medical facilities. While I know they project some transfer in resources and staffing in facilities to medical services, I'd also note the budget shows a substantial decrease in non-recurring maintenance in 2014, a very substantial decrease. This thread is picked up at the very end of the hearing. US House Rep Timothy Walz: The president's budget and the VA budget is a suggestion. Constitutionally, we hold the purse strings. We hold the final decision. So this is where democracy works its best and works its will. And it's very important that we have this so I want to thank you for that. Again, I would be the first to say members of Congress are experts at gross generalization so I want to be very careful on what I do on this. But I do concur and I think some of you brought up some things I'm hearing personally and I go out and talk to people in the field, I talk to those directors and I talk to the nurses and I talk to the people that are cleaning the rooms to hear what's going on and one of the things that I am hearing and this came from one of my areas, we have a -- out in Minnesota, to just give one of them -- we have dental equipment and the space needed ready to stand up three new dental facilities -- our ability to deliver that care -- however, we haven't hired anybody to do it, so it's boxed up and sitting there and that's what's going. Does that surprise any of you? Maybe I'm just looking at where you are at? If that's the case again where our intent was to fund and put it out there. How are we making sure it happens? And I'm wondering -- and I think Carl brought up a good point along with the Chairman -- of how do we account? Is not standing those dental clinics accounting for some of the money that's not spent, that's going back to go elsewhere because I wanted the dental clinics, that's what I voted for and that's what I wanted to see. So I'm just curious to get with you on this. And I say that being very careful of a gross generalization and being very careful of the dreaded disease around here "Somebody Told Me And We Did It." It needs to be more accurate than that. I'm hearing it from you somewhat echoed. If somebody can give me just your feeling on that, is that kind of what's happening here? Are we not given the ability to follow through on some of the things that we're doing or intended to do? Timothy Tetz: Mr. Walz, the System Saving Task Force that the American Legion stands up and sends around to facilities nationwide has made their visits this year and they continue to do so. And it's not uncommon for us to come across empty facilities like this or empty rooms or 'Hey, when we have the right people we can have this tele-health center.' The problem with tele-health -- and it's a great program and I agree with Dr. Petzel on the future that it has tele-health requires somebody to be there to open up the office on the one end, the rural end, and somebody to be there, professional, on the other end to take it. If you don't have those people, all the infrastructure in the world doesn't do anything for veterans. US House Rep Timothy Walz: Yeah and I think it's, for me it's about following through and I think, best laid plans and good intentions, I'm pretty certain if those three dental services were up, they would be full. We could keep them full if we had the dentists, the dental hygenists, everything else that goes with it. So I'm concerned and that brings me to my next question. Again, don't want to over-generalize but this comes from a claims processor out there. They're being asked to do 20 hours of overtime each month, pressures incredibly high, they lost three mid-range folks, they just simply didn't want to do it anymore. And that happens in every business -- again, I don't want to over-generalize. But I heard you mention it. I'm hearing it and it's kind of if: "If there's smoke, there's fire." Is this a problem you're seeing? I think, Mr. Hall, you mentioned this in yours and I know this directly from the person who came to me and, again, said it but with the disclaimer on that, if you're hearing it too? Jeff Hall: We are hearing it, we're hearing it as an organization. I think other members of the IB [Independent Budget -- the VFW, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America], maybe. I personally have heard it because I have friends who work for the VA in various places and it was just basically said as mandatory overtime. There is no choice. It's not -- US House Rep Timothy Walz: That's the way it's being described to me. Jeff Hall: So the mandatory, however they get the 20 hours -- two and a half Saturdays, an hour extra a day, whatever it may be. The biggest concern to those individuals and shared by us is not necessarily the mandatory overtime, it's, to quote them, "Where are we getting the money for this if we're cutting training? How are they requiring this for me to come in on a Saturday to do this but we're cutting the training? We're already disenchanted by the training that we 'don't receive'." So -- US House Rep Timothy Walz: I want to give them the flexibility if they need to do overtime but I just don't think it's a good model to rely on. It always makes me question Jeff Hall: I think it's certainly sending the wrong message. US House Rep Timothy Walz: It's unsustainable too. There was a budget hearing today -- veterans -- and I'd like to cover that in tomorrow's snapshot. We have something else to include today. And to try to squeeze that and the hearing in would mean giving very little attention to the hearing. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. There are a number of veterans issues that aren't being addressed in the national press -- either by reporters or by columnists (including veterans writing columns). (Regional and local press have been very good about covering these issues.) So when Senator Murray speaks in public about those issues, it's news and it's needs to be noted. One of the issues is employment and when she's speaking to potential employers, what she says is especially important and news worthy. We're noting the speech in full and closing out with it. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office Thursday, February 16, 2012 (202) 224-2834 Murray Delivers Keynote Address on Private-Public Partnerships to Help Hire Veterans Murray tells business leaders and veterans "we stand at a cross roads" moment in hiring and transition efforts (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray delivered the following speech on efforts to improve veterans employment through public-private partnerships. Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, delivered the remarks in front of a gathering of national business leaders and veterans seeking employment. The event, which was sponsored by GE and included members of the National Chamber of Commerce, included a workshop for veterans seeking employment. Senator Murray is the author and sponsor of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act which was signed into law last November and provides a comprehensive approach to improving veterans hiring. Senator Murray's full remarks follow: "Thank you Jean for that kind introduction. I also want to thank GE for putting this wonderful, and critically important, event together. And for the tremendous commitment that they have reaffirmed today to hire our nation's returning veterans. "You know, this gathering today of business leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, veterans in need of work, and Congressional leaders could not come at a more pivotal moment for our nation's veterans. As Secretary Shinseki no doubt discussed, we are facing a tremendous influx of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with new and unique needs, and I want to commend him for putting out a budget on Monday that reflects that reality. "But while the needs are often new with more women veterans, more complex medical devices and technology, and more understanding of the invisible wounds of war. The moment is not. "Today, we stand at a cross roads our nation has stood at before. "We are at the end of a conflict that was bruising, but one that also reaffirmed the courage and strength of our service members. We are at a point where we as a nation have to come together to really examine what every single one of us can, and has, been doing to aid those who were asked to make the sacrifices. "It's a moment that in the past we as a nation have responded to well -- such as in the era that built the greatest generation. And one where we as a nation have stumbled -- as in the aftermath of Vietnam when far too many veterans slipped through the cracks. "But it's those moments that must our guide our work today. "I can certainly say that they guide my own work as Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. And that's because those pivotal moments played such an important role in my own life. "As many of you may know, my father was a World War II veteran who was one of the first to storm the beaches of Okinawa. I can remember as a little kid the reverence those in my little town of Bothell, Washington had for his service. "The way he was treated -- not just by neighbors and community members -- but also by the federal government -- that provided him with a GI bill. And that was there with worker training programs for my mom many years later when he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and could no longer work. And that helped him and his fellow veterans prosper. "But my experience with those returning from war was much different decades later when as a college senior I volunteered at the psychiatric ward of the Seattle VA at a time when veterans were coming home with the invisible wounds of war which they didn't yet call PTSD. "I can remember the faces of the veterans, many of whom were even younger than me, who were being told they were shell shocked. I can also remember -- like many of you -- the lack of answers during that period. The feeling that we were not a nation firmly at the back of those who had served. The feeling that as a nation we were quickly turning the page on that war -- and those who fought it. "Those moments have taught us. "And one of the most important things they have taught us is how critically important it is for us to partner with the common purpose of supporting our veterans between the private and public sector. And nowhere is that more true than in the effort to find our veterans good, stable employment. "Now I know that finding work today is a problem our veterans face along with nearly 13 million other Americans....but for our veterans many of the barriers to employment are unique. That's because for those who have worn our nation's uniform -- and particularly for those young veterans who have spent the last decade being shuttled back and forth to war zones half a world away: "The road home isn't always smooth, the red tape is often long, and the transition from the battlefield to the work place is never easy. "Too often our veterans are being left behind by their peers who didn't make the same sacrifices -- who spent their early careers in internships or apprenticeships. Too often our veterans don't realize that their time in the military provided them with similar skills both tangible and intangible that give them tremendous value in the workplace. And too often they are discouraged by a job market that is unfamiliar to them after their service. "But as all those here today who know the character and experiences of our veterans understand, this shouldn't be the case. Our veterans have the leadership ability, discipline, and technical skills to not only find work, but to excel in the workforce of the 21st century. "But despite that being the case -- the statistics have continued to paint a grim picture. According to the Department of Labor, young veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 have an unemployment rate that is over 20%. That is one in five of our nation's heroes who can't find a job to support their family, don't have an income that provides stability, and don't have work that provides them with the self-esteem and pride that is so critical to their transition home. "And so the question becomes: How could this be? "How could these young men and women who have performed so admirably, who know how to lead and know how to get a job done be struggling so mightily? "Well over the last few years, that's the question that I set out to answer in preparing my bill to overhaul veterans employment efforts on the federal level. And it's a question that I knew I had to get answered first-hand from those veterans struggling to find work like the veterans with us today. "So I spent a longtime crisscrossing my home state, which as many of you know has a tremendous number of young veterans -- and I visited worker retraining programs, VA facilities, and more than a few veterans' halls. And in discussion after discussion -- I heard from veterans about the roadblocks they face. "What I heard was heartbreaking and frustrating. "I heard from veterans who said they no longer write that they're a veteran on their resume because of the stigma they believe employers attach to the invisible wounds of war. I heard from medics who returned home from treating battlefield wounds and couldn't get certifications to be an EMT or to drive an ambulance. I spoke with veterans who said that many employers had trouble understanding the vernacular they used to describe their experiences in an interview or on a resume. I talked to veterans who told me that the military spent incalculable hours getting them the skills to do their job in the field, but little time teaching them how to translate those skills into the workplace. "The problems were sometimes complicated and sometimes simple. Most importantly though, they were preventable. "But strangely, when I relayed the concerns of my home state's unemployed veterans to some back here in the other Washington for solutions, none came. "What did become clear is that for too long we have invested billions of dollars in training our young men and women with skills to protect our nation -- only to ignore them once they leave the military. For too long, at the end of their career we patted our veterans on the back for their service and then pushed them out into the job market alone. "So in May of last year, I introduced a bipartisan veterans employment bill that takes the challenges I heard and translates them into solutions to ease the transition from the battlefield to the working world. "For the very first time, my bill required broad job skills training for every service member as they leave the military as part of the military's Transition Assistance Program. It allowed service members to begin the federal employment process prior to separation in order to facilitate a truly seamless transition from the military to jobs in government. And it required the Department of Labor to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable into the civilian sector in order to make it simpler for our veterans to get the licenses and certifications they need. "All of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work. "And late this year they were combined with a tax credit for employers that hire veterans and help to train older veterans for in-demand jobs in the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. And I'm so pleased to note that late last year I joined with Secretary Shinseki -- right next to President Obama when he signed my bill into law. "But while that bill is a critical first step -- it should only be that: a first step. The next step is why I'm here today -- to help continue or work of building partnerships with you -- the business leaders who know our military community better than anyone. "Now, I do have to mention, you are already ahead of the curve. The Chamber of Commerce, working with companies like GE on the Hiring our Heroes initiative, has lead the way on veterans hiring. But we all know that more can be done by businesses large and small across the country. "We can better utilize our workforce training system to get veterans the skills they need to fill the jobs that are open in their areas. We can build upon the relationships we have across the country with community colleges and universities. "But in the here and now, we also need to spread the word on what all businesses can do to help. So, as I do whenever I'm given the opportunity to stand in front of so many big wigs that make the hiring decisions, I need to make my pitch. "And I don't want to just encourage you to hire veterans -- because I know many of you are already doing that -- I also want to pass along the things that are working to sustain veterans hiring so that you can pass it along. "First, please help to get the word out to companies to educate their human resources teams about the importance of hiring veterans and how skills learned in the military translate to the work a company does. I can't tell you how often I hear from veterans who tell me that the terms they use in interviews and in resumes fail to get through to interviewers. "Second, please help companies provide job training and resources for transitioning service members. This is something I've seen done at large organizations like Amazon and Microsoft but also at smaller companies in conjunction with local colleges. In fact, the most successful of these programs capitalize on skills developed during military service and on the job training. "Third, let business leaders know how important it is to publicize job openings with Veterans Service Organizations and at local military bases to help connect veterans with jobs; "Fourth, develop an internal veterans group within your company to mentor recently discharged veterans, "And finally, if you can, please reach out to local community colleges and universities to help develop a pipeline of the many, many veterans that are using GI bill benefits to gain employment in your particular area. "If we can spread the message on just a few of these steps, I'm confident that we will be able to continue to build on the success you all have had in hiring veterans. "But there's one other -- even more important thing you can help get the word out on. And that's the often difficult issue of the invisible wounds of war some potential employees face. "As I mentioned earlier, I have heard repeatedly from veterans that they do not put their military service on resumes because they fear it stigmatizes them. They fear that those who have not served see them all as damaged, or unstable. "We must understand what mental health challenges are, and what they are not. "As we seek to employ more veterans, we need future bosses and coworkers to understand that issues like PTSD or depression are natural responses to some of the most stressful events a person can experience. We need them to understand that these illnesses do not afflict every veteran. "And most importantly, we need them to understand that for those who are affected by these illnesses they can get help, they can get better, and they can get back into their lives. "I know GE is doing good work in this area. But we need to let businesses know that if they have a veteran who is facing some challenges, please, do the right thing and encourage him or her get help and get back to their lives. "They need to know it is okay to reach out. Help them take advantage of the excellent mental health care that I know Secretary Shinseki and VA are capable of providing. "The veteran will be better, and they will be an even stronger member of your team. "You know, our veterans don't ask for a lot. Often times they come home and don't even acknowledge their own sacrifices. "My own father never talked about his time fighting. "In fact, I never saw his Purple Heart, or knew that he had a wallet with shrapnel in it, or a diary that detailed his time in combat until after he had died and my family gathered to sort through his belongings. "But our veterans shouldn't have to ask. We should know to provide for them. "When my father's generation came home from the war -- they came home to opportunity. My father came home to a community that supported him. He came home to college, then to a job. A job that gave him pride. A job that helped him start a family. And one that ultimately led to me starting my own. "That's the legacy of opportunity we have to live up to for today's veterans. And it's one that we can only deliver on if we work together. "You know, it's no secret that here in Washington D.C. we are sharply divided on any number of economic and political issues facing average Americans right now. "But this is one issue we are rarely divided on. It unites even the most unlikely partners, even Speaker [of the House John] Boehner and I, because we realize that: "We have all made a promise to those who have signed up to serve. And we all need to keep it because so much is on the line. Because we are once again at that defining moment in how we treat our veterans. And the truth is that we stand perilously close to repeating some of the same mistakes of the past. "But we don't have to. There is a sea of good will in this country. Non-profits, community leaders, and companies like GE who don't just talk about helping -- who actually roll up their sleeves and do it. "Let's continue to take advantage of that support. Let's work together to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's make sure that at this crossroads for our nation's veterans we come together as a nation to help them down the path of opportunity. "Thank you for inviting me to join you today. I look forward to continuing this work together will all of you." ### Matt McAlvanah Communications Director U.S. Senator Patty Murray 202-224-2834 - press office 202--224-0228 - direct matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates iraq al sabaah alrafidayn marina ottaway danial kaysi kitabat aswat al-iraq