Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Senator Burr: I've had too many of these hearings

This morning, we attended the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.  The Committee Chair is Patty Murray. and Richard Burr is Ranking Member.  But we haven't seen him in some time.  In fact, his father had just passed away the last time I saw him at a hearing where he participated in full.  I'm not griping but I have missed his questioning.

He wasn't there when the hearing started so I thought this would be another hearing without him.  But he was there before the witnesses made their opening statements.  He noted he had a cold.  Normally, I just offer some impressions on the hearing.

Today, I'm going to present a lengthy excerpt of his questioning the witnesses.

If you've never seen him on the Committee in action, I think the following will give you an idea of why he's one of my favorite Committee members.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Dr. Rooney, do you disagree with the GAO's testimony today?

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, we look at the GAO as a partner to help us evaluate how we're doing.  I think they brought up some very good points in their report.  Of course, when you're using statistics, we may look a little differently at a particular statistic.  However, I will say that there was nothing in there that we didn't think really helped us further understand where our emphasis really needs to be.  There are improvements.  We've been very open about saying this is a system that needs improvements.  I think the GAO, very much, said the same thing.  So we are looking to continue to work with them, take the information they provided, and it gives us a road map to make sure that as we're putting resources to it, we take their report plus our own internal analysis that goes even deeper than theirs to say are these improvements making -- are the resources making improvements to the system which we all know, and totally agree, is not where we want it to be.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Mr. Gingrich, do you disagree with the testimony of  GAO?

John Gingrich:  I -- No, sir.  In fact, I look forward to the discussions we had before the testimony and the report because I believe that anytime somebody gives you insights into what you're doing that you can take care of one more veteran or service member to make their life better in this transition process we need to look at it and make it happen.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: So we're all in agreement that we're just south of 400 days in the cycle of an applicant being processed?  395, I think, 394.  In May 2011, the Secretary of the Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs committed to revising the IDES so that it could be completed in 150 days and went further and agreed to explore options for it to be 75 days.  Now I-I -- I've had too many of these hearings.  We have them every year.  And we hear the same thing: "Oh, gosh, look at what we're doing."  Now I've heard the most glowing progress report from both of you and then I get the realities of the days haven't changed.  You have met some improvements in certain areas.  I commend you on that.  The timeliness goals in areas have been better.  But the reality is that we've got a broken system and we're five years into it and I hear testimony where 'we're starting to begin to review our business processes.'  Well, you know, why did it take five years to get to this?  What -- What can you convey to me today that's concrete, that tells me a year from now, we're not going to be at 393 days.  When you [Dr. Jo Ann Rooney] said earlier, "We're instituting IT changes this summer that will improve our times by thirty or forty," I thought you were going to say "percent."  And you said "days."   So now my expectations are that if we implement what you just said, we're going to be down to 360 days which exceeds the DES [Disability Evaluating System] and Secretary of the VA by the 110 days over what their goal was for today.  So share something with me that's telling me we're actually going to do this.

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Sir, that was one of the steps.  The IT solutions are not the only steps.  In addition, it was indicating that Army has hired 1218 people so we're also adding people to the process because --

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Is this the first individuals that we've hired in the five years to pull us up?

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  It's the largest group of people that we've hired --

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Okay, we've hired people.  We've plussed-up.  And the overall time of completion went up.  Not down.

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Many of these changes, sir, are fairly recent.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Okay.  Lt Gen Thomas Bostwick, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff recently called the IDES process "fundamentally flawed, adversarial and disjointed."  Do you agree with him?

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  I've sat next to my colleague many times and we've had the discussions and I believe that we're both acknowledging that it is a system that while initially designed and conceived to be on that was smooth and transparent and easy, we have not achieved that result.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  So what are we doing to change it?

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  As both my colleague and I have indicated, at this point, we are literally looking case-by-case. We are following cohorts through each step of the process to see when we add people to it are we actually improving the times?  I'm not saying that we're not able to improve it for those already in the system but we also have to make sure that we're tracking the new ones in to say, "Did we in fact cut that time down?" And it is going step-by-step through that process --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: I don't want -- I don't want to seem adversarial, Doctor.  I think we're all after the same goal.  But you just agreed with a statement that General Bostwick made where he basically said: The system can't be fixed.  Now if you agree with that, my question is very simple: Is it time for us to start over again?  To take a blank sheet of paper and say, "How do we design this in a way that's for the benefit of the service members?"  The number one priority -- the number one priority for both --  I don't question that -- who are caught in a system that's unacceptable today from a standpoint of the length of time, from a standpoint of the accuracy Senator Murray talked about.  And I guess, you know, my question to you would be, if given a blank slate, would the Army design IDES the same way or would you do it differently?  And if your answer is "differently," then for God's sake, let's do it.  Tell us what we can do to be partners to change it in a way that it works versus to keep a structure of something that individuals who are involved in it like General Bostwick say "fundamentally flawed, adversarial, disjointed." That's not the relationship we want with our service members who are going through.  The Chairman's been very kind to me. I just want to ask one last question and this is to Mr. Gingrich.  You made the statement, I think, in your testimony that VA has the capacity to make compensation as early as they choose to after a service member is discharged.  Is that accurate?

John Gingrich:  We can make compensation the day after they're discharged.  That is correct, Senator.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  The day after?

John Gingrich:  Right.  By law, we cannot do compensation until after they've been discharged.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  How long is it taking, on average, for the first VA check to arrive after a service member who went through the IDES is discharged from the military?  Not the decision letter from the VA but the actual check?

John Gingrich: Right now it's taking too long. It's taking about 60 days.  Well part of the reason -- and it's not an excuse -- but part of the reason is we do it by month. So if the person is discharged before the pay system is set up, you're waiting 30 days.  And I think one of the things that the VTA will give us is they'll give us the information that we need electronically at the discharge so we can speed that process up.  I'm very confident that we're going to get very close to the 30 day goal.  And by the way, Dan and I talked, VTA will be in place in June and that process will not only allow  us to track the payment, it will also allow us to track the ratings and the discrepancies in the ratings.

So there you go.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, Mary 23, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, corruption in Iraq puts the people at risk, the political crisis continues, pilgrims and police are among those targeted in the country today, Senator Patty Murray continues to pursue how US service members and veterans with PTSD ended up with their diagnoses changed, Senator Ron Wyden asks questions about who's checking KBR's spending claims, and more.
Chair Patty Murray:  Almost a year ago today, this Committee held a hearing on VA and DoD efforts to improve transition.  We explored a number of issues including the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. At the hearing, we had an opportunity to hear from both departments about the state of the joint program.  The Departments' testimony that day spoke to how the Departments had created a more transparent and consistent  and expeditious disability evaluation process.  There testimony also states that IDES is a fair, faster process. Well now that the joint system has been implemented nationwide, I have to say that I am far from convinced the Departments have implemented a disability evaluation process that is truly transparent, consistent or expeditious.  There are now over 27,000 service members involved in the disability evaluation system.  As more and more men and women return from Afghanistan and as the military downsizes, we're going to continue to see an even larger group of service members transition from the military through the disability evaluation process.  This process impacts every aspect of a service member's life while they transition out of the military.  But it doesn't stop there.  If the system doesn't work right, it can also negatively affect a service member and their family well after they have left active duty.
This morning the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing entitled "Seamless Transition: Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System." Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member.  There was one panel of witnesses: DoD's Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, GAO's Daniel Bertoni and the VA's John Gingrich.  The hearing was prompted by, among other things, the Interim Committee Staff Report: Investigation of Joint Disability Evaluation System
Research for the report resulted in many discoveries including basic errors not being caught such as, "A servicemember with a lung condition who was being treated with steroids and immunosuppressive drugs was incorrectly rated at 0% rather than 100%."  The report found many problems regarding the VA recognizing TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury):
Some VA medical examinations involving TBI failed to address findings on detailed neuropsychological testing conducted during service.  TBI facets such as memory are reported as "normal" based on "general conversation" without repeating or referencing prior tests, which identified the type and severity of the servicemember's TBI deficits.   In a number of cases, TBI and PTSD conditions were rated together when the evidence suggested that some of the TBI conditions should have been considered separately.  For example:   
• Testing that would help to differentiate between TBI and mental health conditions was not  conducted despite indications of deficits, such as visual-spatial orientation and memory loss due to organic injuries (such as trauma to a specific part of the brain associated with certain deficits). 
• VA claims for TBI residuals were denied or received a lower rating based on the absence of objective testing.  If testing had been conducted, objective evidence of TBI for symptoms complained of by the servicemember, might have changed the result.
• Conclusions by VA examiners were inconsistent with the medical evidence, such as an examination for TBI which found no TBI to support a diagnosis of post-traumatic headaches, but indicated that the same veteran's dizziness following an IED blast injury was due to his TBI.
• A servicemember diagnosed with anxiety disorder prior to separation was erroneously denied service-connection for PTSD when the disability had been diagnosed as anxiety disorder due to combat.
Chair Murray noted the case of Sgt 1st Class Stephen Davis who is a veteran of both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War and was receiving treatment for Post Traumatic Stress for about a year before he was accused of "making up his ailments" and he was part of a group at Joint Base Lewis-McChord: "All of these men and women had been diagnosed with, and in many cases were receiving treatment for, PTSD during service.  But then, during the disability evaluation process they were told that they were exaggerating their symptoms, they were labeled as malingerers and their behavioral health diagnoses were changed. "  She noted that a re-evaluation process  of examining 196 service members who were diagnosed with PTSD and then told they did not have it.  The re-evaluation process has already found that, yes, 108 of those service members do have PTSD (as originally diagnosed). 
Chair Patty Murray: Dr. Rooney, let me start with you.  We have had in the past regarding this joint disability rating system and the number of challenges service members faced while they were going through this process.  Recently, it has come to my attention that some of our service members involved with the disability evaluation process are facing retribution and unsupportive behavior from their chains of command while on limited duty and waiting for a disability decision.  I've heard from service members who were forced to participate in activities in direct violation of doctors' orders, who've been disciplined while struggling with behavioral health conditions and who have struggled to get access to care because their leadership would not cooperate with their treatment requirements.  I think you agree with me, that is completely unacceptable.  Whether in a warrior transition unit or not, leaders have to understand these medical issues and the difficult process that these service members are going through and they have to provide the leadership and support that these men and women need. So I'm going to begin with you by asking you, Dr. Rooney, what needs to be done to provide supportive and compassionate leadership for these injured service members that are forced to wait for a disability decision.
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney: Clearly the information you just shared is troubling on many levels and I would be very interested in speaking with you or your staff so that we can actually determine where those issues are occurring and make sure that, in fact, the leadership does know -- which is the department's decision and the leadership that I'm familiar with -- that that cannot be tolerated, that we must understand what is necessary for the care, that there are no stigmas with being able to address behavioral health or mental health issues and that really is the department's position.  So in those cases, if there are those substantive issues that you mentioned, not only do we need to find out where those are so we can work directly with that leadership and correct that situation, but we will continue with our ongoing work at all levels of command -- not just at the senior level of the department.  But we understand that it needs to go right through the command level of every installation to ensure, in fact, that the situations you described are not occurring.
Chair Patty Murray: Well we need to make sure that's happening because, as we all know, these are very challenging situations for these soldiers and any kind of retribution shouldn't be tolerated whether it's one case or many.  But I will share those with you but I want to make sure that system wide, that leaders throughout the chain of command all the way to the bottom are clearly understanding what these soldiers are going through and are not having any kind of repercussions on those individuals.
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Absolutely.
Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Gingrich, from the perspective of someone who has served in many leadership positions within the military, what can we do to educate our military leaders on not only this process but really on the  medical issues facing so many of these young men and women?
John Gingrich: Madam Chairman, I see a lot of things that the Army's doing and I know that because I've been in their VCTs.  They started, as we're told by GAO, they're now bringing in in layers all the way up to the Vice Chief of Staff so they've involved current level discussion groups -- Brigadier General, Major General, all the way up and they included VA in every one of those discussion groups.  So I think getting the information is the biggest key that we've got and the biggest challenge that we have.  The Secretary right now, yesterday, spoke to the Sergeant Major Academy in the Army and the Sergeant Majors are now understanding that this is a problem that we have to take on as two departments and not just one. And I think that education is happening.
Chair Patty Murray: Well we still have a lot of work to do --
John Gingrich: Yes, sir -- Yes, ma'am, we do.
Chair Patty Murray:  Okay.  Dr. Rooney, there is no doubt that the events at Madigan have shaken the trust and confidence of service members who are in the Disability Evaluation System. I believe that transparency and sharing information about the ongoing re-evaluations that are happening today and actions the Army and DoD are taking to remedy this situation will go along ways towards restoring some trust in this system. I wanted to ask you today what we have learned from the investigations that the army is conducting into the forensic science unit at Madigan?
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Well as you pointed out earlier, there have been 196 re-evaluations completed to date.  Of which, 108 of those have been diagnosed as having PTSD where before they had not.  We also --
Chair Patty Murray: Let me just say that they had been diagnosed with PTSD.  When they went through the evaluation system they were told they did not.  Now going back and re-evaluating them once they've gone out, we're saying, "Yes, you did --
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney: Yes.
Chair Patty Murray:  --  indeed have PTSD."
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Correct.  108 of those 196.
Chair Patty Murray: More than half.
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Correct. There are 419 that have been determined to be eligible for re-evaluation.  287 from the original  group that was looked at and as you know the Army actually opened the aperture up to see anybody else who would have gone through the process while forensic psychiatrists were being used.  So that was 419 totally eligible for re-evaluation. And at this point, there are three in progress and twelve being scheduled.  So what we have learned from that is clearly that the process that was put into place at that time did not function as originally designed.  Evidence did not show that there was a mean spirited attempt but really to create similar diagnoses.  Obviously, that was not something that occurred.  So the Army has taken the lessons from here and it's actually going back to 2001 to re-evaluate all of the cases where we might have a similar situation.  What we're doing from that point is not only learning from what Army is doing and looking at these re-evaluations where we're using the new standards in many ways advances in the medical and behavioral health areas to better diagnose PTSD but also then we'll be taking those lessons learned across the other services as well. So since Army has the greatest majority of people going through -- currently about 68% of the people in the Disability Evaluation Process are from Army -- we will take the lessons learned from there and apply those across to all the services.
Chair Patty Murray: Well I really appreciate the Army's announcement that they are now going to do a comprehensive review of PTSD and behavioral health systemwide throughout the Army.  I believe that is a first and important major step for the Army to be doing.  But I did want to ask you, Dr. Rooney, I have been told by Secretary [of the Army] McHugh about the issues we were seeing at Madigan were not systemwide.  And then the Secretary announced a comprehensive review across all systems.  So if we didn't believe this was a system wide problem, what led the Army to look into a system wide review?
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  Secretary McHugh and I have had numerous conversations and I believe the use of the forensic psychiatrists was primarily isolated to Madigan and that's where I believe that comment of it wasn't system wide because that type of additional process --
Chair Patty Murray:  So the forensic system wasn't system wide.  But system wide, we have issues with people who are not being diagnosed correctly?
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney:  What we want to do is look across the system and ensure that if we do have issues we identify those and we're able to get those individuals back into the system.  So I believe at this point, it was very much a forward leaning approach to say  we need to look across the system, not that we're convinced similar problems existed, but that it's the right thing to do for the individuals since, as you pointed out, we saw a number of these re-evaluations ended up with diagnoses changed.  So it's the right thing to do for people to look across.
Chair Patty Murray:  Okay and I think it's extremely important that we find anybody who was misdiagnosed and get them care.  So we'll be continuing to focus on this.
Later during Senator Jon Tester's questioning, Dr. Jo Ann Rooney would insist to him that most of the changed diagnoses "were before 2008"  and Chair Murray would have to step and offer, "Let me just clarify a large number of the ones who were misdiagnosed or had their diagnoses changed inaccurately were after the 2008 -- after the forensic psychology system was put in place."
Ava will cover Tester at Trina's site tonight, as always Kat will grab Ranking Member Richard Burr as the topic for her site and Wally will offer some thoughts on the financial at Rebecca's site.
Still on the subject of the US Senate, we'll note this from Senator Ron Wyden's office:
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Washington, D.C. – In a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called on the DoD to investigate the excessive expenses racked up by the legal team of Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) – a defense contractor that operated in Iraq with the contractual ability to pass all of their legal costs to American taxpayers. A lawsuit against KBR brought by a group of Oregon National Guard members assigned to provide security for KBR personnel claims that KBR management knew that the soldiers were being exposed to toxic chemicals while working at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant.
A newly declassified indemnification provision in the KBR contract with the U.S. military releases the contractors from all financial liability for misconduct and allows KBR to pass the on all of their legal costs to the U.S. government. Recent investigations into the conduct of KBR's legal team have uncovered excessive legal costs including senior attorneys billing at $750 per hour, taking numerous international and domestic first class flights and paying one expert more than $500,000 for testimony and consultation who has admitted to billing KBR for time spent sleeping.
"Essentially, KBR was handed a blank check with the Pentagon's signature, and it seems clear to me that they intend to run up the bill as much as possible before cashing that check," Wyden wrote in the letter. "What has DoD done to ensure that KBR is not taking advantage of taxpayers?  Has DoD done a detailed audit of KBR's legal expenses so far?  Has anyone at DoD checked to see if the legal expenses are excessive?  Has any kind of cost-benefit been done to determine if it would be cheaper to direct KBR to settle the lawsuit?"
Kellogg, Brown and Root were contracted in 2003 to perform clean-up work at the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility in Iraq. Members of the Oregon National Guard were assigned to provide security for the KBR contractors and were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals including sodium dichromate, a carcinogen that contains hexavalent chromium – one of the most dangerous chemicals on Earth.  A group of exposed soldiers have brought a lawsuit against KBR based on evidence indicating that KBR managers "were aware of the presence of dangerous chemicals, but failed to warn the soldiers working in and around the plant," Wyden wrote in the letter.
Under KBR's contract, the government has the ability to direct KBR's legal defense and require the company to settle with Oregon Guard Members. 
Yesterday dust storms forced the closure of an airport in Iraq.  Today Al Mada reports that most of Iraq should experience only "light dust" except for southern Iraq where dust storms will continue.  (Even if you can't read Arabic, you can enjoy the large photo with this Alsumaria report which shows the dust storm turning Baghdad into a hazy, golden glow.) The weather is of great interest to the US government today as Bagdhad hosts a meet-up on Iran and nuclear power.  AFP explains, "The talks, set for May 23, will see Germany join the veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- look to head off a dangerously escalating standoff over Iran's nuclear programme."  Baghdad International Airport was open today.  Alsumaria reports that delegations from the European Union, China, France and the US arrived today and were met by Iraq President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister and thug Nouri al-Maliki.  (Iran arrived yesterday.  The group then proceeded to Nouri's home in the Green Zone for their meeting. Al Sabaah notes that Iran's hoping to see economic sanctions lifted while Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK and the US want concessions from Tehran on the unrainium enrichment program. 
RTE reports, "Around 15,000 Iraqi police and troops will protect the venue inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone."  In addition, James Reynolds (BBC News) explains, "Outside the International Zone (formerly known as the Green Zone), Iraqi soldiers wearing balaclavas stand up on the turrets of armoured jeeps." AFP offers, "Thousands of additional Iraqi security personnel have been deployed in areas north, west and south of Baghdad to try to prevent the firing of mortars and rockets into the capital, a security official said. The official also said without providing figures that additional forces have been deployed at checkpoints in the Iraqi capital, and that searches have been increased. "   Fars News Agency adds, "Iran's top negotiator Saeed Jalili, who is in Baghdad to hold talks with the representatives of the six world powers, held separate meetings with several high-ranking Iraqi officials."    Press TV notes that Jalili met yesterday with Talabani who declared the talks were "an important step twoards finding an appropriate solution to Iran's nuclear issue."

Ali Akbar Dareini and Lara Jakes (Associated Press) note that Iran expects to leave the conference with a more relaxed stance from the other countries towards their nuclear plans; however "no breakthrough accords are expected in the talks in Iraq's capital, suggesting that all sides are still shaping their strategies and the negotiation process is likely to be long."  ITV speaks (link is video) with the UK's Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander who declares,  "I think this is a time for clear minds and calm words. We want to see a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to this issue.  And I hope the British governmnet -- with the other governments represented at this critical meeting in Baghdad today -- are concentrating their efforts on finding a successful, peaceful and diplomatic resolution to these issues.  Well there are very real concerns about whether Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon and the impact of that on the wider Middle East.  But that's why I think  all of our efforts should be directed torwards sustaining the peaceful pressure on Iran and in good faith taking forward the negotiations that are going to be the basis of talks in Baghdad today."  Alexander is a Labour Party member and part of Labour Party Leader Ed Miliban's shadow cabinet.  Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi tells Alsumaria that the meet-up is, in part, Iran's attempt to bolster Nouri's shaky image within Iraq.  James Reynolds (BBC News) speaks with hotel owner Khaled who states, "We don't care about Iran. We care about our country.  We want our country to be safe and everything." Heart on hand, Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq's Ammar al-Hakim swears to Fars News Agency, "The Islamic Republic of Iran has always acted upon international rules and mechanisms since its establishment."

In the lead-up to the meeting, various things have taken place.  Yesterday,  AP noted today that the two countries have exchanged the remains of "98 Iranians and 13 Iraqis" from the 8 year war between the two countries that kicked off in 1980.  Al Mada uses a larger figure of 222 and states that 124 are the remains of Iraqis.
AFP reports 3 Baquba roadside bombings resulted in 3 deaths and fourteen injured while a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured.  AP adds that a bus enroute to Baquba was attacked resulting in 2 deaths and seven people being injured.  Reuters informs that a Ramadi roadside bombing left 3 Lebanese pilgrims dead and another seven injured.  And AFP notes that attacks in Kirkuk claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left five more injured.
From violence to risking children's health, Alsumaria reports that children in the province of Dhi Qar have been given expired polio vaccinations.  This shouldn't be an issue of the children being harmed by that shot because when this happened a few years back in Pakistan health authorities rushed to assure there was no physical danger.  The danger potential exists in terms of not knowing who got the expired vaccine.  If Dhi Qar's records aren't accurate, a child whose parents believe to be vaccinated is in fact not and at risk of polio. Iraq has been polio free since 1999. As a result of the 1999 outbreak, Iraq administered the vaccine.  In the weeks ahead of the start of the Iraq War, UNICEF offered children's immunizations and UNICEF has continued to offer them since then.  While 1999 seems a lifetime ago -- especially in a country like Iraq where the median age is 20.9 years  -- the outbreak of 16 cases in 1999 caught people by surprise.   Equally true, the infrastructure is much worse than it was in 1999 and exposed sewage increases health risks across the board.
The risk of a parent falsely believing their child to be immunized is not a minor one and its a sign of how deep the corruption is in Iraq that this took place.  When Iraqis took to the streets in 2011 and protested one of the items at the top of their list was corruption.  Nouri lied to them and told them to give him 100 days and it would be taken care of.  As usual with Nouri, it was just an attempt to shut people up, distract them and then do nothing.  And nothing exactly what happened.  He never addressed the corruption and made a mockery out of the concerns of the Iraqi people.
Still not getting how bad the corruption is?  Iraqis can't count on electricity.  Four to six hours a day, for many, is having electrical power.  They have to utilize generators and many, lacking potable water, have to boil it before drinking it or risk getting cholera or other diseases.  And none of this is new.  And each year beginning with 2006, Nouri has promised basic services would get better.  They haven't.  And that was another demand when Iraqis took to the streets in 2011.  While the people have long suffered from the lack of basic services, Al Sabaah reports a new potential victim is emerging: The National Museum in Baghdad.  Lack of electricity is putting at risk the manuscripts, artificats and relics the museum houses.   Currently, a generator's being used in an attempt to maintain a level temperature. 
When Iraqis took to the street in 2011, among their demands were that the innocents be released from the blackhole known as "justice."  With untold thousands of Iraqis disappeared near daily and lost in the legal maze, families were left not even knowing if their loved ones were still alive.  Amnesty International is calling for the release of Ramze Shihab Amhed from Iraqi detention:

Ramze Shihab Amhed has already had eight trials and says he was tortured while in secret detention
Amnesty International is calling for the release of a British man who has been detained in Iraq for nearly two-and-a-half years, denouncing new attempts to put him on trial as "politically-motivated".
Ramze Shihab Ahmed, a 69-year-old dual Iraqi-UK national who has lived in the UK since 2002, is detained in Baghdad with the Iraqi authorities saying they are investigating his alleged involvement in terrorist offences.
However, Mr Ahmed has already been through eight trials and acquitted in each one. Most recently, on 10 May, he was found not guilty over alleged terrorist offences, but immediately told that he must remain in detention while further allegations are investigated. Amnesty believes that he has been in custody long enough for investigations into further charges to have been completed.
The Iraqi government has recently ordered the arrest of a number of Arab Sunnis in the country, including officials, and conducted trials against ex-army officers. The circumstances surrounding the continuous detention of Mr Ahmed, an ex-army officer from the Arab Sunni community, suggests his prosecution and detention may be politically-motivated.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:
"This is looking more and more like a politically-motivated effort to persecute Ramze, a Sunni and a former military man.
"The Iraqi authorities have already put Ramze through a staggering eight trials across two and half years, and have had more than enough time to investigate any alleged wrongdoing.
"Unless the prosecution can demonstrate a legitimate reason to detain Ramze, they should put an end to his ordeal and release him.
"The Iraqi authorities should allow him to return to his wife in Britain and
investigate the allegation that he was tortured while held in a secret jail."
Ramze Shihab Ahmed was originally arrested by security officials in a relative's house in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on 7 December 2009. The previous month he had travelled from the UK to Iraq in an effort to secure the release of his detained son 'Omar. However, after himself being arrested, he was held for nearly four months in a secret prison near Baghdad, during which time his whereabouts were completely unknown to his family. During this period Mr Ahmed alleges he was tortured - including with electric shocks to his genitals and suffocation by plastic bags - into making a false "confession" to terrorist offences.
Amnesty has campaigned for Mr Ahmed's allegations of torture to be independently investigated and has urged the UK government to make representations to the Iraqi authorities on his behalf concerning this.
Mr Ahmed "reappeared" in late March 2010 when he was able to make a phone call to his wife Rabiha in London, imploring her to seek help from the UK authorities. However, partly on the basis of his coerced "confession", he was subsequently put on trial, including on various terrorism charges. 
Ramze Shihab Ahmed's wife Rabiha al-Qassab, a 64-year-old former teaching assistant who lives in north-west London, said:
"I'm appalled at what they're doing to Ramze. He's an innocent man who's already been through so much.
"Though I've lost a lot of faith in the Iraqi justice system, I still hope the Iraqi authorities can see that they're holding an innocent man who has had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Surely after eight trials they can now see that?
"UK officials have been very helpful to my husband and have offered their support, but I think the time has come for the UK government to absolutely insist on Ramze's release."Note to editors:
Over 6,000 Amnesty supporters have lobbied the Foreign Secretary William Hague over the case. UK consular officials have visited Ahmed in jail in Baghdad and the Foreign Secretary has raised his case with the Iraqi Foreign Minister.
Amnesty supporters are currently lobbying the Iraqi embassy in the UK, calling for Ramze's release if the prosecution authorities fail to show good reason to hold him longer and for an investigation into his allegations of torture (see:
In Iraq, the political crisis continues . . . for over a year now.  Al Mada continues to be one of the leading press outlets in the Middle East today with their latest scoop.  They publish a letter signed last Saturday by various leaders (KRG President Massoud Barzani, Moqtada al-Sadr, Ayad Allawi and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Najaifi).  The letter, agreed to and signed at Moqtada al-Sadr's home on Saturday, calls on the National Alliance to propose an alternative to Nouri al-Maliki.  The letter references a written reply from National Alliance leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari (presumably the message Moqtada was waiting on at the end of last week) and how it did not make clear the response to demands for the implementation of the Erbil Agreement.  Kitabat reports that al-Najaifi released a statement yesterday referencing the letter and stating that it gave the National Alliance one week to find an alternative to Nouri.  Citing unnamed sources, Al Sabaah states that the National Alliance has rejected the call to find an alternative.

Al Mada reports that representatives of the National Alliance will meet with the reps from the Kurdistan Alliance in Baghdad today.   Yesterday, Nouri's supporters attempted to change the narrative by insisting (after it was learned that there were over 163 votes to oust Nouri) that they had 163 votes to oust Osama al-Najaifi as Speaker of Parliament.  Alsumaria notes the whisper campaign against the speaker includes the allegation that he's in service to a foreign country.  Al Mada adds that Nouri's State of Law insists this vote is taking place!  Just as soon as Parliament's back in session.  (That would be weeks and weeks from now.)  Alsumaria explains Iraqiya is calling State of Law's claims false and stating they do not have the votes they claim to; however, that Nouri does have time to act to stop a no-confidence vote.  (The deadline Moqtada gave him expires Sunday.)  Rumors continue to fly that Iraqiya's Saleh al-Mutlaq made a deal to save his own ass (Nouri had been trying to oust him as Deputy Prime Minister) which now will find him betraying Iraqiya and siding with Nouri.  When these rumors started last week, we noted al-Mutlaq's denial.  Currently, he's issued no denail to the rumors.

In related news, Alsumaria reports Iraqi President Jalal Talabani states that a date for a national conference will be set soon.  Of course, Talabani earlier set the date at April 5th but, less than 24 hours before that meet-up was to take place, it got cancelled.   State of Law will have to cancel their whisper campaign that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is on their side.  Al Mada notes that al-Sistani's aids have rejected the rumors that the Grand Ayatollah has admonished Moqtada al-Sadr not to split ranks with the Shi'ite politicians.  The Grand Ayatollah has issued no such statement and is not involved in the political process except to say that the crisis needs to be resolved.

This position is in keeping with al-Sistani's position for over a year now.  The rebuke to those spreading the rumors may also result from the fact that the attacks earlier this year on the Grand Ayatollah's supporters and clerics were thought to have been carried out by Nouri's associates.