Trump, Chicago, Cubs, God

THE ABSURD TIMES

Our Media, Above

More Absurdity Abounds

By

Czar Donic, ed.

I know I promised no more on this election, I know; however, this is the Absurd Times and where better?  It is our responsibility to cover the absurd, and nowhere is it more prevalent than here.

Above you see the monopoly on information distribution in the U.S.  See, we do not believe in Government control of the media.  Well, actually, since these corporations do own the government, perhaps we do, but at least we are not like Russian, eh?  Or Egypt?  No.  We believe in a free press.  As free as possible so long as it makes money.

So why is the election covered in such depth on U.S. media?  Because it is free programming, that's why.  Same with Egypt Air.  They do not have to pay royalties to the political candidates and they can charge the same for commercials.  In fact, they even charge the candidates for the commercials on top of it all.

Therefore, we hear little about the fascism or National Socialism growing in Ukraine.  Say what?  You never heard of it?  Well, of course not.  Who is going to watch that when we have Donald Trump to see and hear?  Never mind the few who would rather see a rerun of Barney Miller than pay any attention to Donald Trump.  There are many more who are so ill-informed that they will listen to and believe anything he says.

Now he is dragging up the suicide of Vince Foster, someone Hillary Clinton may have had killed while she was first lady.  Obama said that after that, Donald will turn his "attention to important things such as uncovering the moon landing fake.  Now that is a good and funny line, but then Obama spent 10 years in Chicago so he has a sense of humor. 

How do I know?  Believe me, everyone who has spent that much time in Chicago has a sense of humor or else has relocated.  This is the place that predicts the Cub's winning the World Series of Baseball every year.  The last time that happened, man invented the flying machine, later called the airplane.  Once, the Cubs made it to the World Series, but a goat cursed them and they lost.  Say what?  You don't believe that?  Well, think about this: a few years running Cubs fans went to Arizona (spring training) and sacrificed goats.  See, the reasoning was that if they killed enough goats, the Cubs would win.  Right.  You don't believe that?  Well, you haven't lived 10 years in Chicago, then.

Recent news is about Albuquerque, New Mexico where people rioted outside his rally.   Well, everyone has forgotten about when he wanted to hold a rally in Chicago.  Essentially, Chicago told him "Forgeddabout it! Outta here! No way!"  Trump stayed away.  Chicken.  Was it because of good taste?  Nope.  Trump claims to be a Republican and probably is as he is nearly as insane as his fans and Republicans do not fare well in Chicago.  That's all.

Crimea?  Remember that? The descendants of Genghis Kahn? Actually, they are much better off now, although one was victorious in the Eurovision contest with a song about her grandmother being persecuted by Stalin.  Any Fans of Stalin out there? 

So it was time today to check out a Donald Trump speech.  Sort of like expecting a Cubs victory?  First, some person introduced him at length and finished with "God bless America!"  He said it as if it were an order, a command.  Assuming there is a God, and wondering if there is one why is there a Trump, it leaves questions as to whether God follows orders.

As Trump was speaking, I was reminded very much of when I spent some time writing satire.  It was all extemporary, and one was on a very boring sports announcer named Bob Elson.  The trouble with that is that boring is very difficult to make funny, and so it soon shifted to a satire on the host of a radio talk show host who was popular.  Now the best thing the Cubs ever had was a radio play by play announcer named Jack Quinlin.  In fact, he was so good that he won the award for best announcer five years straight.  All such announcers are employees of the team and the Cubs moved him from a 5,000 watt station to a 50,000 clear-channel station that at night could be heard from the East coast to the Rockey mountains.  In traditional Cubs fashion, he died in a car crash before the sixth season.  No, it wasn't him. 

The person in mind was called Jack Eigen, a guy who was full of himself.  We wanted to name him Jack Ego, but Mike Nichols beat us to it and nobody could top Mike Nichols, so it remained Bob Elson.  Elson, during the 60s, would give long monologues on Luke Appling while the game was in progress.  This was, indeed, on the radio.  The satire took the form of Hockey interviews thinly disguising the names of the players. 

So, Trump's speech, what I could tolerate of it, was like Jack Ego reincarnated.  The choice the above corporations will leave the U.S. with is Trump or Hillary Clinton.  They complain that he will not concede and give up, but he is actually a politician who has constructive ideas, a rarity in American politics.

So, how about Israel?  Israel is Jack Eigen.  The Kennedy administration made it a law that all radios manufactured in the U.S. (yes, they once were) had the receive both AM and FM stations.  The remedy for Israel is not a simple, but individuals can chose not to contribute by not purchasing anything from which it profits.  Other postings indicate how to do this.

Das ist alles fÜr Heute.

Fox's Folley

THE ABSURD TIMES

Our Illustrator sent this message last night:

We did it! We brought Cruz down. What power we have! Maybe we can micro manage the whole campaign and get the result we want - President Bernie Sanders and a democratic congress! :)

Yes, we are powerful.  Remember when Newsweek announced it was going digital and thus challenging the Absurd Times?  Well, when's the last time you bought a copy of Newsweek?  Remember when Obama and Hillary announced that Crimea would never choose to be Russian?  We told you they would.  We also said that the most dangerous Republican running this time was John Kasich.  Well, we hereby command him to withdraw or we will go after him.

[Sorry, we had to stop typing and do other things.  I suspect my keystrokes were monitored and the news passed to Kasich – that's fine because I'm tired of figuring out how to spell that name.]

Here is a statement many were unprepared for.  More about it after you read it:

Mark Pw Haim

April 30 at 10:30am · Columbia, MO · 

Effective this morning, I'm going on holiday.

No, I'm not leaving town for vacation, but rather I'm taking a break from posting about electoral matters here on FB.

Quite honestly, I don't have the emotional energy to deal with all the negativity engendered by differences in approach to elections, their meaning and our roles as citizens.

I believe in engaged citizenship. I also see politics as the art of the possible and see voting as something to be done strategically, given the flawed and undemocratic nature of our electoral system.

I recognize that outcomes matter.

I care deeply about the planet, the urgent need to address the climate crisis, and a whole variety of other pressing issues, from court appointments to reproductive rights, from the minimum wage to social security, from immigration to healthcare, the cost of college and so many more on which there are real differences between centrist Ds, and hard-right Rs.

I continue to encourage all in states that haven't voted yet to support Bernie. Perhaps a miracle is still possible. But I think it's OK to share candidly my thoughts as to what we might do if Bernie does not pull off this long-shot upset, especially when I'm seeing multiple posts daily urging Bernie to run as an independent or Green and urging people to write-in Bernie, if HRC is the nominee.

Some of the responses I've seen to my posts and comments, essentially calling me a "sellout" for urging continued organizing--being in this for the long haul--and strategic voting in November, have been very disconcerting.

I respect the rights of others to view things differently. But trying to point out, in a respectful manner, why, from my perspective, the "Bernie or Bust" mindset is counterproductive has just been a source of acrimony. No, voting for a centrist does not mean one embraces the ideology and values of centrism. It simply indicates one is making a rational choice given a limited set of options.

I honestly just don't have the time or energy for this. There are places where I need to put my energy. I appreciate and respect everyone I've worked with over the past many months on Bernie's campaign and I thank you all for the time, effort and energy you've put forth.

P.S. Feel free to comment if you like, but I'm not going to be drawn in to debating these issues here. For me it's time to move on.

**

Well, that's Mark for you.  He is hardly a sell-out and has long been a social activist.  I know him and can tell you that if he has any short-coming, it is that he is just too much a believer in the human race.

As for me, it is not Bernie or Bust, not at all.  If it is Bernie, I may consider involvement in the political system again – MAYBE.  Let me give a brief history.

In 1960, the people tried a new approach, especially in Viet-Nam.  JFK was elected and decided to stop interfering.  So, the CIA shot him.

The Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater to oppose Lyndon Johnson, the peace candidate.  We voted against more war.  We got LBJ and more war.

1n 1968, McCarthy proved that the people were still against the war, decided against Hubert Humphrey (for 8 years HHH kept saying things, as Mort Sahl pointed out, "it's a beautiful day – just as the President promised") and Bobby Kennedy ran as well.  Martin Luther king was killed, the Bobby Kennedy, they even threw in George Wallace for good measure.

Nixon promised two things: Bring us together and end the war.  He had a secret plan.  We didn't know it was to increase the genocide and expand it and start it up domestically [Kent State].  It does sound like Trump promising to eliminate ISIS but not giving away his plans, eh?

The final one worth voting for was Obama and we know how that turned out.  At least he didn't insult our intelligence every time he opened his mouth, but that was about it.

The jokers and fools who think the choice between Hillary and Donald is significant are very strange indeed.  The only fun that is left to come is the spectacle of Fox News having to think up ways to make Donald Trump look good because is is a Republican.

And I promise, this is it for U.S. election drivel.

Bye

Our Primaries

THE ABSURD TIMES

Tom Lehrer explaining Math, link below.

Our Primaries

By

Chicago Thought

There seems to be a great deal of confusion as to the "Democracy" pervading the United States.  Now this can only be cleared up by realizing that when the political parties use the term democracy it does not mean "one man, one vote".  Once you get that absurd notion out of your head, things become more understandable.

Donald Trump (hey, a broken watch is right twice a day, eh?) is quite right when he says that the system is "rigged".  As a matter of fact, for you mariners out there, the rigging is as elaborate as you ever saw, and it is so rigged that the two-party system will protect its interests and keep sailing on as if the people have no power over it whatsoever.

Now, the Republican system is beyond description in its complexity.  For example, you may hear about the delegates in Pennsylvania amounting to, say, 85 or thereabouts.  However, not told is the fact that only 17 of them are chosen by the voters.  The rest are just there and can do whatever they want.  In addition, two of those 17 that are running against each other both are Cruz supporters.  That really means 15 are left. 

Enough of the Republicans as I have no intention of writing a 300 page book in two days.  Let's look at the Democrats.

Whenever you see the delegate count, it probably says, as of April 21, 2016, that Clinton has 1,930 delegates and Sanders 1,189.  2383 are needed to win.  This means that Clinton only needs 453 while Sanders needs 1144.  When those numbers are presented, it looks as if the primary is over.

However, 540 of those delegates are so-called "Super Delegates" (hereafter referred to as SD to distinguish from STD) and really have not been elected by anyone as a delegate.  Now, Clinton has 502 SDs while Sanders has 38.  Let us just take the whole population and see what happens.

If those 540 SDs were to all support Sanders, he would have 1691 and Clinton would have 1390.  (The 540 is a fixed number and all will vote and not go away so if one person leave one and goes to the other, it makes a total difference of 2)  Why not? Now Sanders is leading and on his way to victory.  

I'll tell you why not: "The system is rigged".  Where have I heard that before? 

One final fact: many Democratic, not as many Republican, states hold primaries that EXCLUDE independents.  In other words, unless you pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party, say in New York, 9 months before the election, you can't vote.  Of course, in the real election, once the parties decode on their nominees, Independents can vote.  So, one man, one vote?  Don't be silly.

Here is a link that will help you understand how the math works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWaJ0sy03g&feature=em-share_video_user

Apologies for the commercial (something about divorce – just click the x in the upper right-hand corner of the insert).

REMEMBER YEMEN, OR THE GOP SHOW?

THE ABSURD TIMES

Remember Yemen, or the GOP show?

By

Tsar Donic

 

Does anyone remember Yemen?  It was described on several occasions by our current President as "our model for combating terrorism."  We should keep this in mind, not as an indictment of our current administration, but as an indication of how stupid our public and uninformed our press is about anything other than what they see on Television, and this does not mean the newscasts as they are simply one minor form of mass-communication used by our system.

Despite the fact that nearly 10,000,000 (that is ten million, just in case the commas give problems) children have been placed in a condition of near-starvation at best by actions there, the major issues today are Donald Trump, his comments as they relate to almost anything, especially women, and Heidi Cruz.  So, I suppose that needs clarification.

Donald Trump is an entertainer with no real position on anything other than what he sees as his audience that in this case is the Republican Party's public or possible public.  He wants as large an audience he can get and this accounts for his standing in the delegate count.  His positions, in fact, if anything, are less fascistic and sincere than those of his rivals.

Ted Cruz is his main opponent right now.  His supporters released a photograph of Trump's wife, nude or nearly so, right before the Utah primary.  If you don't realize the significance of this, you need to read a bit about the history of Utah.  Trump retaliated by re-tweeting (I suppose that is a word these days) a photo of Ted's wife, Heidi.  Ted took a manly posture to defend his wife and children, although those who have followed him even a bit know that he would send Heidi to the guillotine if it gained him enough votes.  Ted Cruz, despite that pose, otherwise believes most of what he says and that makes him far more onerous that Trump.  Kaschich is even more dangerous as his policies are just as evil, but he is able to appear actually human.

Remember Yemen? There has been precious little disseminated about it of late.  We supply Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars of weaponry and are in their command center as they attack Yemen.  The façade for the war is religious, Shia v. Sunni, but the reality is simply more weapons sales, as usual.  Al-Quaeda is expanding there, not ISIS.  ISIS is actually diminishing in attractiveness as young men are learning that membership in ISIS leads greatly to erectile dysfunction.  

So, here is a discussion of what is going on in Yemen for Democracy Now and Democracynow.org.  You can also get the videos there.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Yemen, where hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest the first anniversary of the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led offensive against the Houthi rebels. The protests were said to be the largest in Yemen since demonstrations in 2011 forced the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. This is one protester, Ibrahim al-Ubaidi, speaking at Saturday's demonstration.

IBRAHIM AL-UBAIDI: [translated] Today, all Yemenis, from all different sects and regardless of their political affiliations, came out today in the masses, a crowd of over a million, to show the world that the Yemeni people can never be shaken nor defeated.

AMY GOODMAN: Since the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led intervention began last March, more than 6,000 people have been killed in Yemen, about half of them civilians. According to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children are in dire need of humanitarian assistance, and 320,000 are at risk of severe acute malnutrition. Meanwhile, the U.S. launched air attacks on al-Qaeda in southern Yemen, killing 14 people described by local sources as suspected militants.

For more, we're joined by two guests. In Beirut, Lebanon, we're joined by Farea Al-Muslimi, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. He's also the co-founder and chair of the Sana'a Center for Strategic Studies. In 2013, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the U.S. secret drone program. And we're also joined by Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division. Her recent piece in the Los Angeles Times is headlined "The U.S. is quietly helping Saudi Arabia wage a devastating aerial campaign in Yemen."

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sarah Leah Whitson, explain what the U.S. is doing in Yemen.

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: What the U.S. is doing goes well beyond providing military assistance, as in the weapons that are actually being used in this war. What's less known and less understood, and what the U.S. government has been very deliberately vague about, is that the U.S. is actually sitting in the Riyadh Command Center providing targeting assistance—this is what they've told us—as well as providing refueling for aircraft. Now, the targeting assistance, it is what's most problematic, because we don't know whether they're providing targeting assistance on a strike-by-strike basis, whether they're just reviewing the strike lists, whether they're actually telling the Saudis what they should strike. And that is what we are asking the United States to come clean about. We want to know exactly which strikes the U.S. government has provided assistance for.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you've also documented the use of—by the Saudis, of cluster bombs in their attacks. Could you talk about that, as well?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Yes. So, the U.S. and the United Kingdom have both sold cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. And now we have documented finding in strikes the duds of American-made cluster munitions. Recently, some British-made cluster munitions were also found. These cluster bombs were used in civilian areas and civilian sites, including, for example, Sana'a University, where there were remnants of cluster munitions.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the issues you emphasize in your Los Angeles Times piece is that Saudi Arabia has been on what you call a "global arms shopping spree" and is now the world's largest purchaser of weapons.

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: It's true. It's a petrodollar-funded acquisition campaign, and it has been going on for a long time. The figures I cited of their purchases from the United States just last year of $20 billion is just a piece of it. They are a shopper from many, many European countries. And if you look at the arms that they've been buying for the past two decades, the figures are just staggering. What I think is even more surprising is that UAE, with a population of less than a million people, a fighting-age population of, you know, a couple of 20,000 or 30,000 men, is the fourth largest purchaser of weapons and is fighting, actively fighting, in five wars. It's just—it's very hard to comprehend the purpose of these weapons, but it's very clear that the narrative of a Sunni-Shia war, of this enmity between Saudi Arabia and Iran, is very, very lucrative for defense companies.

AMY GOODMAN: And how much are U.S. companies profiting?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, just last year, $20 billion. If you look a five-year ratio—and the figures are not always easy to come by, because they're hidden sort of as contracts and when they're going to be fulfilled and when they're not going to be fulfilled—the figure just from the United States is well over $50 billion.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Farea Al-Muslimi, I'd like to ask you to talk about the humanitarian crisis that's resulting from these constant attacks and bombardments on Yemen.

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Sure. I mean, this is something that has been going through the last year. The humanitarian situation has gotten really bad, or really worse than it was. What's, I guess, more striking in this war in Yemen is humans are kind of the weakest cycle in this intense fighting happening between the Houthis and between the Saudis, whom—both sides have very little, if any, consideration for humanitarian laws and for international war laws. This is a serious issue because it's not just the bombing that has—you know, and the extensive fighting that has been killing civilians, but also the imposed internal and external siege on the country have made medicine, food and all sorts of basic lives close to impossible to get in some areas, even if you had the cash. The problem of fuel shortages, the problem of—has created a lot of—or much of a black market, much of a black market around Yemen.

But more importantly, despite the fact, you know, both sides, the Houthis and the Saudis, have been claiming to fight each other, actually, the biggest payer or the biggest consequences of this war have been civilians around Yemen, not, I think—I'm pretty sure that the 6,000 figure of those died the last year are much less than they are actually—they are actually in the ground. I'm sure it's much, much more than this. It's just very hard right now to document, to travel around the country, and it's very hard for international media to continue following the news in Yemen. There is obviously other crises in the region, like Syria, Libya, that has gotten a lot of attention, comparatively speaking, to Yemen, and have, in a way—in a way or another, have made Yemen's space in the international media and in the international even aid work attention very much limited than it actually needs or much less than the catastrophe on the ground.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Farea, I want to go to—back to 2013, when you testified in Washington on Capitol Hill about the U.S. drone war. You spoke a week after your home village was hit by a U.S. drone strike.

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: What Wessab's villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences here. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time. What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America in Wessab.

This is not an isolated incident. The drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis. I have spoken to many victims of U.S. drone strikes, like a mother in Jaar who had to identify her innocent 18-year-old son's body through a video in a stranger's cellphone, or the father in Shaqra who held his four- and six-year-old children as they died in his arms. Recently in Aden, I spoke with one of the tribal leaders present in 2009 at the place where the U.S. cruise missiles targeted the village of al-Majalah in Lawdar, Abyan. More than 40 civilians were killed, including four pregnant women. The tribal leader and others tried to rescue the victims, but the bodies were so decimated that it was impossible to differentiate between those of children, women and their animals. Some of these innocent people were buried in the same grave as their animals.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Farea Al-Muslimi, the response of the members of Congress when you testified afterwards? And obviously, nothing much has changed in terms of the drone strikes, but your assessment of the impact that this is having on Yemen?

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: I mean, clearly, the issue of the U.S. policy in Yemen is not, you know, since last year, since it started, unconditionally supporting the Saudis in this big warfare, but even goes back to 2013 and much before that, when it conducted a lot of airstrikes, but also drone strikes, around Yemen. What's, I guess, you know, as much as—and this is not just something new, but I think something that will always carry with the legacy of a President Obama, which is, you know, compared to his relative success in Cuba, with the nuclear deal, Yemen has been one of the big dark marks in his eight years in the presidency. First of all, you know, he used the drones in one year comparatively much more than even Bush used in eight years. But then it went on to this support of unconditional airstrikes in Yemen with the Saudis.

But even more—I think even much more dangerous than the arm deals is this international protection at the U.N. Security Council. Let's not forget, last year, the United States and the United Kingdom and much of the big powers blocked the attempt to create an international investigative committee on war crimes that have been possibly committed in the conflict in Yemen. Despite the fact there has been a clear evidence of multiple war crimes have been committed, the United States and a lot of the Western countries have blocked any attempt to investigate this, have even provided an easy path and easy, comfortable support for the coalition in the U.N. Security Council, but overall in the Western decision-making cycles.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the media coverage, Farea? And I want to put that question to Sarah Leah Whitson also. Where is the media spotlight on the catastrophe that is Yemen right now?

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: I mean, it's unfortunately not as much as it should be, very, very limited. But there is kind of also strict rules have been imposed by both the Houthis and the coalition and the legitimate government. Both are not, obviously, doing anything good around the country, so they have imposed strict conditions and strict lines against, you know, even attempting to travel to the country, or even very, very strong, tight or very oppressive, even on those journalists around the country—even those right now in Sana'a or in Yemen have been jailed multiple times. And some have been used as human shields by the Houthis. At the same time, other journalists have been killed in airstrikes around the country. So, it's—you know, it's a problem where there isn't already much correspondents and much media in Yemen, but even it has just got much worse since this last coalition or since this last war started earlier last year.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Sarah Leah Whitson, what you think the media needs to pay attention to?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, I was just in Yemen last week, and I can say that it's very hard for international media to operate in Yemen, particularly to get out of, for example, Sana'a, because it's just simply very dangerous. And airstrikes are a real, live threat. There are land mines, there are cluster munitions. It's a very high security risk for journalists to get out, particularly to the areas that have been the worst struck. We've been trying to do our best in that circumstance. Very brave U.N. workers have been trying to do their best to get aid. But it's not an easy war to cover.

What I find more disturbing, understanding the limited coverage, is the absence of a framing of a narrative into the terror that's being brought on the Yemeni people. You know, there's this global outrage when Brussels Airport and a coffee shop is struck, and Yemenis are asking me, "Why is there no global outrage when our schools, when our universities, when our hospitals, when our clinics, or when football fields, when playgrounds are bombed with U.S. bombs? Where is the outrage at attacks on civilians here in Yemen?" And the absence of that parallel framing, of that comparison, is very, very difficult for Yemenis to understand.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the prospects for some kind of a negotiated settlement or peace between the warring factions?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, we can hope for it. Every time there's a major attack on civilians, like the recent attack on a marketplace where Saudi bombs killed over a hundred civilians, and there is a bit of outrage from the U.N. that comes from that, the Saudis immediately talk about a ceasefire and a peace process. Clearly, the war is going very badly for the Saudis, in that they're not effectuating their gains, they're not displacing the Houthis from power, they're not able to restore former President Hadi to power. And there's a lot of pressure domestically on Saudi Arabia to wrap it up. The Emirates already wants out. They've reduced their troops by half. They realize this was not a good idea. So I think there are a lot of pressure, good pressure points to get Saudi to wrap up this war, end this war. But whether that will bring peace to Yemen is very hard to say, because the country has been so seriously disrupted, not just politically, of course, but on a humanitarian scale.

AMY GOODMAN: You were very critical, Farea Al-Muslimi, of The New York Timesop-ed, "Yemen's President: A Path to Peace." What did you object to?

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Well, it's not objection, but, I mean, very few people would make people like, you know, Hamid Karzai or Nouri al-Maliki look fine. Unfortunately, our president is one of those people. I mean, there has been so much happening in Yemen and so much destruction have been done the last year and a half and before that, and it is very hard to imagine the Houthis' ability to have done this harm or for the Saudis, if it was not for his and his Cabinet's misperformance around the country and in their—in achieving their duties. It's very hard to see the president claiming 85 percent of the country is liberated, while he's still outside the country, while still remotely.

There has been serious issues in Yemen. There has—a lot of political failure has happened the last three years. And unfortunately, you know, whether the president or the Houthis or the team that has been running the country are a big part of this problem. And it's very hard to imagine any way forward with this mentality of blaming or of mentality of, you know, not taking responsibility of what they should have done in Yemen over the last few years. It's hard to imagine that anything could have been fixed or could be fixed in the near future, as we are still having this big failure by the government, but also this failure to act upon the international resolutions, 2216. And it's a serious issue. For example, we have Hadhramaut in the east side of the country, where it's literally taken by al-Qaeda, one of the richest and one of the biggest areas in Yemen, while the Cabinet and the president and the government has done nothing to liberate this from al-Qaeda. It's a very serious issue we have in Yemen that, you know, not just the Houthis and not just all of this coup sides by Saleh, but also by the government and by the regime that is not doing what it should have been doing since the last four years.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Sarah Leah Whitson, finally, in our last minute, how hard is it to find out what the U.S. is doing in Yemen right now? And what should the U.S. know, people, the U.S. population, know?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, more importantly, the U.S. population should know that the United States government is actively fighting in this war. According to the laws of war, it is a party to the conflict. It's helping. It's fighting alongside Saudi Arabia, supporting the war in Yemen, that is indiscriminately bombarding Yemeni children, Yemeni schools, Yemeni hospitals. And it will be very hard for President Obama to complain about violent extremist attacks that attack Paris and Brussels, even Ankara, when our weapons and our military personnel are assisting Saudi Arabia commit terrible attacks on Saudi schools and Saudi hospitals. That's going to come back to us. To the U.S. government, we have an open question: What are you targeting? Tell the American people what you are targeting in Yemen.