WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is providing weapons and ammunition to Somalia's transitional government as it fights al Qaeda-linked Islamic militants, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Thursday. Somali government soldiers, who are fighting Islamic militants, patrol Mogadishu. "At the request of that government the State Department has helped to provide weapons and ammunition on an urgent basis," he said. "This is to support the Transitional Federal Government's efforts to repel the onslaught of extremist forces which are intent on destroying the Djibouti peace process." Kelly said the weapons shipments are in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, which ban some arms shipments to Somalia. There is growing concern that Somalia could be the next base for al Qaeda as U.S. forces pound their positions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. CIA Director Leon Panetta recently said that the intelligence agency is keeping tabs on the region as a possible destination for fleeing al Qaeda operatives. "Our concern right now is that likely safe havens are areas in the Horn of Africa, like Somalia and Yemen, that are countries that because of their political status can be attractive to al Qaeda in order to operate there," Panetta said earlier this month. "We are focusing on those countries as well in order to ensure that there is no safe haven for al Qaeda as we continue to pressure them, continue to push them, and hopefully continue to make the effort to destroy them, not only in Pakistan but throughout the rest of the world." Somalia is not new territory for al Qaeda, according to CNN's terrorism analyst Peter Bergen. "Al Qaeda was running training camps in Somalia in the early and mid-1990s," he said. "If this is now coming back, this is something that al Qaeda has already done and it's worrisome for the future. ... "The fact that we're seeing evidence of this already happening in both Yemen and Somalia suggests that, A, the drone program in the tribal areas of Pakistan has been effective, but, B, you know it's pushing al Qaeda into areas where they'll build up larger operations." Somalia recently called on its neighbors to send military forces to help government troops stop hard-line Islamist militants from taking over. The call for help came hours after a third top politician was killed this month in ongoing fighting. The deaths included Mogadishu's police chief and Somalia's internal security minister, who was killed in a suicide car bombing in the central city of Beledweyne. A Pakistani militant who is a high-ranking official in al Qaeda is leading the fighting in Somalia against the government, said Sheikh Adan Madowe, Somalia's parliament speaker. Madowe warned that militants will spread fighting into the rest of the region if they topple the government in Somalia. The United States is concerned that Somalia's weak government could fall to the Islamist insurgency, as it did in 2006 before Ethiopian forces ousted the militants from power later that year. "We think this government ... represents Somalia's best chance for peace, stability and reconciliation," Kelly said Thursday. "This government is the best chance they've had in the last 18 years." Somalia's current President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed is a former member of the Islamic Courts Union, which took part in the 2006 coup. His decision to renounce the bloody insurgency and try to establish peace in Somalia has put him at odds with Islamist hard-liners who are still battling for control of Somalia. Residents and journalists in Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, have reported seeing foreign fighters among Al-Shabaab, the radical Islamic militia that is battling to overthrow the weak transitional government. Those foreign fighters recently distributed recorded messages from al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden calling for the overthrow of the government. Al-Shabaab, also known as the Mujahideen Youth Movement, was officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States in March 2008. It is waging a war against Somalia's government in an effort to implement a stricter form of Islamic law, or sharia.

Question: The shipments are in accordance with what?

Question: What could be the next base for Al Qaeda?

Question: What is linked?

Question: Which country could be the next base for al Qaeda?

Question: What is in accordance with UN Security Resolutions?

Question: The weapons are for fighting who?

Answer: U.N. Security Council resolutions,

Answer: Somalia

Answer: al Qaeda-linked Islamic militants,

Answer: Somalia

Answer: weapons shipments

Answer: al Qaeda-linked Islamic militants,

Summary:
State Department: Weapons for fighting al Qaeda-linked Islamic militants .
Weapons shipments are in accordance with U.N. Security Resolutions, Kelly says .
There is growing concern that Somalia could be the next base for al Qaeda .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States needs a new law requiring that the president consult with Congress before going to war, a blue-ribbon panel led by two former secretaries of state said Tuesday. James Baker, left, and Warren Christopher led a panel that recommended a new War Powers Act. The current War Powers Resolution is "ineffective, and it should be repealed and it should be replaced," James Baker said in a joint appearance with Warren Christopher, announcing the results of the study they led. The recommendation follows failed efforts by Democrats in Congress to put a stop to the war in Iraq or to put conditions on President Bush's conduct of it. Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize armed force against Iraq in 2002, but some Bush opponents say it should not have been interpreted as a blank check for the United States to invade and occupy the Persian Gulf nation. Baker, who served in George H.W. Bush's administration, and Christopher, who served under President Bill Clinton, said their project was not prompted by any specific war, with Christopher adding that the commission had "tried very hard not to call balls and strikes on past history here." "We didn't direct this report at any particular conflict," Baker added. The existing law, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, has been regarded as unconstitutional by every president since it was passed as a response to the Vietnam War, Baker and Christopher said. It requires presidents to report regularly to Congress about ongoing conflicts, but the provision has been flouted. "No president has ever made a submission to Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since 1973," former Sen. Slade Gorton, a Republican member of the committee, said Tuesday. The panel, formally called the National War Powers Commission, said a new law should be created requiring the president to consult with key members of Congress before sending troops into combat expected to last more than a week, or within three days of doing so in the case of operations that need to be kept secret. It should also make clear exactly who the president needed to consult. The panel suggests that the president talk to "a joint Congressional committee made up of the leaders of the House and the Senate as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees." The new committee would have a permanent professional staff with access to intelligence information, Baker and Christopher said. Congress, in turn, would have to declare war or vote on a "resolution of approval" within 30 days, they said. If a resolution of approval failed, any member of Congress could introduce a "resolution of disapproval," but it was not clear that such an act would stop a war in progress. Christopher was unable to say in the news conference what practical effect congressional disapproval would have. Baker said the commission had been in touch with the presidential campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, as well as leaders of Congress. He declined to reveal what they thought of the proposal, but said: "We haven't gotten a negative reaction." Congress has not officially declared war since 1942, when the United States entered formal hostilities with the Axis powers in World War II. But since then, presidents have sent troops into countries including Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and Iraq. The Constitution makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces, but gives Congress the power to declare war and approve military budgets. Baker and Christopher's group included both Republicans and Democrats and held seven meetings over 14 months.

Question: What does the panel propose?

Question: Who proposes new law?

Question: What did Panel propose?

Question: Who lead the study?

Question: What does the panel say about the War Powers Act?

Question: what is ineffective?

Question: what is proposed in new law?

Question: What does the panel propose?

Question: What did the panel propose?

Question: What did the blue ribbon panel say?

Question: What act is ineffective?

Question: Which former secretaries lead the study?

Answer: new War Powers Act.

Answer: Congress

Answer: a new War Powers Act.

Answer: James Baker,

Answer: "ineffective, and it should be repealed and it should be replaced,"

Answer: The current War Powers Resolution

Answer: before going to war,

Answer: new War Powers Act.

Answer: "a joint Congressional committee made up of the leaders of the House and the Senate as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees."

Answer: before going to war,

Answer: War Powers Resolution

Answer: James Baker,

Summary:
War Powers Act is "ineffective" and should be repealed, blue-ribbon panel says .
Former secretaries of state James Baker and Warren Christopher led the study .
They say the project was not prompted by any specific war .
Panel proposes new law requiring president to consult with Congress .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States needs to formulate an "updated strategy" for Iraq, now that the Bush administration's 18-month game plan for the country is completed, the head of the Government Accountability Office told lawmakers Wednesday. U.S. soldiers crouch at their positions during a mission in  Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, earlier this month. Acting U.S. Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro appeared before a House Armed Services Committee hearing to discuss last month's GAO progress report on Iraq, which reaffirmed the need for a renewed strategy in the war-ravaged country. The report, Dodaro said in prepared remarks, noted that "some gains" have been made in the security, legislative and economic areas since President Bush last year announced "The New Way Forward" -- the near-term goals for Iraq that included the military surge. The surge, or troop escalation, ended this month. "The United States had made some progress in achieving key goals stated in 'The New Way Forward,' " the report said. "Looking forward, many challenges remain, and an updated strategy is essential." Dodaro said the progress report recommended an updated strategy in Iraq to the Departments of State and Defense. He told lawmakers that the departments said they will "review and refine the current strategy as necessary, but asserted that 'The New Way Forward' remains valid." Dodaro also argued that a renewed strategy is important "for several reasons." The goals and objectives for the present phase end this month and they are "contained in disparate documents rather than a single strategic plan," he said in his prepared remarks. "Much has changed in Iraq since January 2007, when the president announced 'The New Way Forward.' Violence is down, U.S. surge forces are leaving, and a new framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq needs to be agreed upon beyond the U.N. mandate," Dodaro said. The GAO report said that while the number of enemy-initiated attacks in Iraq have decreased about 80 percent from June 2007 to June 2008, the "security environment remains volatile and dangerous." The agency noted that not all of the country's provinces have lead responsibility for security and less than 10 percent of Iraqi security forces "were at the highest readiness level." The progress report also cited the enactment by Iraqi lawmakers of measures "to return some Baathists to government, grant amnesty to detained Iraqis and define provincial powers." It said there is an "unfinished" legislative agenda, citing the need for measures on "sharing oil revenues, disarming militias, and holding provincial elections." A provincial election law was passed on Tuesday by Iraq's parliament, the Council of Representatives, but Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has rejected it, his office said Wednesday. The measure was strongly opposed by Kurdish lawmakers and Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government had criticized it, calling for its rejection. It's not clear whether further negotiations may take place to amend the legislation. As for the economic arena, crude oil production is below U.S. goals, even though it has "improved for short periods," the GAO report said. Goals for water service are "close to being reached," but the daily electricity supply "met only slightly more than half of demand in early July 2008." It also noted that Iraq "spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its reconstruction efforts between 2005 and 2007." Dodaro said the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies should "develop an updated strategy for Iraq that defines U.S. goals and objectives after July 2008." "This strategy should build on recent security and legislative gains, address the remaining unmet goals and challenges for the near and long term, clearly articulate goals, objectives, roles and responsibilities, and the resources needed," he said.

Question: Who spoke to House committee?

Question: What remains below U.S. goals?

Question: Situation in Iraq remains "volatile and" what?

Answer: General Gene L. Dodaro

Answer: crude oil production

Answer: dangerous."

Summary:
NEW: Head of Government Accountability Office speaks to House committee .
Though attacks are down, situation in Iraq remains "volatile and dangerous"
Report cites "unfinished" legislative agenda in Iraq .
Iraq's oil production remains below U.S. goals, report says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States on Thursday imposed economic sanctions on a North Korean company that the United Nations said is linked to the country's nuclear weapons program. News comes on day U.S. State Department Envoy Philip Goldberg met with U.N. sanctions committee. A U.S. Treasury Department statement said Korea Hyoksin Trading Corporation is owned or controlled by Korea Ryonbong General Corporation, which has been designated by the United Nations as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. The order freezes any U.S. assets of Hyoksin and prohibits any Americans from dealing with it, the statement said. It notes that a sanctions committee set up by the U.N. Security Council recently cited Hyoksin for involvement in development of weapons of mass destruction. The announcement came as the U.S. coordinator for implementation of U.N. sanctions against North Korea met Thursday with the Security Council sanctions committee. The envoy, Philip Goldberg, said the talks showed "strong commitment" by all nations to enforcing Security Council Resolution 1874, which authorized sanctions against North Korea's weapons program. "What I found in that room and in my dealings with other governments ... is unity of view," Goldberg said, specifically mentioning China, which is North Korea's longtime supporter. "Commitment to implementation is strong and unified," he said.

Question: What is linked to corporation associated with weapons of mass destruction?

Question: What did the U.N. recently cite Hyoksin for?

Question: What is Hyoksin involved with

Question: What is Hyoksin linked to?

Question: Which company does the order prohibits Americans from dealing with?

Question: What freezes Hyoksin's U.S. assets?

Answer: Korea Hyoksin Trading

Answer: involvement in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Answer: a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

Answer: country's nuclear weapons program.

Answer: North Korean

Answer: The order

Summary:
U.S.: Hyoksin linked to corporation associated with weapons of mass destruction .
Order freezes Hyoksin's U.S. assets, prohibits Americans from dealing with company .
U.N. recently cited Hyoksin for involvement in weapons of mass destruction .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States will allow Americans to send mobile phones to relatives in Cuba under a change in policy that President Bush announced Wednesday. President Bush announces the U.S. policy allowing cell phones to Cuba at the White House on Wednesday. Bush said he is making the change since President Raúl Castro "is allowing Cubans to own mobile phones for the first time." "If he is serious about his so-called reforms, he will allow these phones to reach the Cuban people," Bush said. Bush urged the Cuban government to loosen restrictions further, saying if Cubans can be allowed to own mobile phones, "they should be trusted to speak freely in public." They should be allowed to watch uncensored movies and have free access to the Internet, he said. And he called for the government to implement major free-market reforms. Relations between the United States and Cuba remain tense nearly 50 years after Fidel Castro overthrew the pro-American government in Havana. The United States has maintained an embargo against Cuba for decades. Cuban officials on Monday accused the top U.S. diplomat in Havana of delivering money from private anti-Castro groups in Florida to dissidents in Cuba. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that "the U.S. government has programs to provide humanitarian assistance to people that are essentially forgotten by the Cuban government and that we ... do not stand in the way of private groups doing that as well." As to how that is done, he said, "I'm not aware of the mechanics; I don't steep myself in these things." Fidel Castro, beset with health problems, handed day-to-day governing power over to Raúl, his younger brother, earlier this year. After being elected president in February, Raúl Castro announced that Cubans who can afford them could buy cell phones and DVD players and stay in hotels previously reserved for foreign tourists -- overturning bans from the Fidel era. The goods and services remain out of reach for most people on the island, where $120 cell phones plus $10.80 calling cards cost about six times the average monthly salary. Bush said Wednesday it is "the height of hypocrisy to claim credit to allow Cubans to purchase appliances that virtually none of them can afford." Though the price may put mobile phones out of the reach of most Cubans, they are affordable for many of those who have access to U.S. dollars -- typically either sent from relatives abroad or earned internally by tourist workers. Bush on Wednesday marked what the White House called a Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People, which the president said he hopes will be an annual event.

Question: what did president bush say about cubans

Question: What does Bush call for?

Question: What is the new leader allowing?

Question: What has the us maintained?

Question: Who did President Bush say should be trusted to speak freely in public?

Question: what is raul castro allowing cubans to do

Question: What is Cuban leader allowing Cubans to buy?

Question: how long has the U.S. maintained an embargo

Question: What did Bush call for Cuba to implement?

Answer: "they should be trusted to speak freely in public."

Answer: announces the U.S. policy allowing cell phones to Cuba at the White House on Wednesday.

Answer: Americans to send mobile phones to relatives in Cuba

Answer: an embargo against Cuba

Answer: Cubans

Answer: own mobile phones for the first time."

Answer: cell phones

Answer: for decades.

Answer: major free-market reforms.

Summary:
President Bush: Cubans also "should be trusted to speak freely in public"
Bush calls for Cuba to implement major free-market reforms .
U.S. has maintained an embargo against Cuba for decades .
New leader Raúl Castro allowing Cubans to buy cell phones, DVD players .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States will provide $73 million in aid to Zimbabwe, President Obama announced Friday after meeting with Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai at the White House. President Obama (right) praised Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai at the White House on Friday. "I obviously have extraordinary admiration for the courage and tenacity that the prime minister has shown in navigating through some very difficult political times in Zimbabwe," Obama said. "There was a time when Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa, and [it] continues to have enormous potential. It has gone through a very dark and difficult time politically." Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe "has not acted oftentimes in the best interest of the Zimbabwean people and has been resistant to the democratic changes that need to take place," Obama said. "We now have a power-sharing agreement that shows promise, and we want to do everything we can to encourage the kinds of improvement not only on human rights and rule of law, freedom of the press and democracy that is so necessary, but also on the economic front." The U.S. aid will not be going to the government directly "because we continue to be concerned about consolidating democracy, human rights and rule of law," Obama said. "But it will be going directly to the people in Zimbabwe." In a CNN interview following his meeting with Obama, Tsvangirai said he is grateful for the generosity. "Whether it is humanitarian aid or transitional support, it adds up to the relief that Zimbabwe is seeking," he said.  Watch Tsvangirai discuss importance of aid to Zimbabwe » Tsvangirai said he told Obama he would like the United States to use its global influence to assist Zimbabwe in dealing with the challenges it faces. Tsvangirai said he understood other nations' reluctance to support the Zimbabwean government, given Mugabe's controversial history. "I think it's fair," he said. "I understand it, given our history, and I'm not going to defend President Mugabe." But, he noted, the two have agreed to work together and help Zimbabwe progress as a nation. In remarks with Obama, Tsvangirai said progress has been made by the transitional government, but much remains to be done. "It is the problems of implementation," he said. "... even by the standard of our own benchmarks, there are gaps that still exist." He said he would continue to strive to meet those benchmarks, not for the international community, but because "it gives [the] people of Zimbabwe freedom and opportunity to grow." The power-sharing arrangement between Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, and Mugabe came after contested elections last year. "Of course we cannot brush away that history, that sad history," Tsvangirai told CNN. But he said he is hoping the country will heal and move forward, and wants even those skeptical of Mugabe to appreciate the transition process. Asked whether he believes Mugabe should retire, Tsvangirai said "at the age of 85, I think one needs to retire." But, he said, for his own legacy, it's important for him to be thinking about a "dignified exit." "I think that [the power-sharing government] provides him with this opportunity," Tsvangirai said. Asked about his relationship with Mugabe, he said, "We don't have to fall in love to work together. But we have accepted that we have made an agreement to have a workable relationship between the two political parties." He said there had been acrimony between the two, but they realized it was not helping the Zimbabwean people. "We are inspired by people like Nelson Mandela, who had to go for 27 years in jail but still come out and say, 'Let's forget about the past' ..." he said. He and Mugabe have chosen the process of dialogue rather than violence, Tsvangirai said. "Let history judge whether this historic experiment was the right course of action."

Question: What did Tsvangirai say

Question: what did Obama praise

Question: What Tsvangirai said about relationship with Zimbabwe President?

Question: Who is the president of Zimbabwe?

Question: With who is Tsvangirai in power-sharing with?

Question: Who did President Obama praise?

Question: In total, how much will be aid offered from President Obama to Zimbabwe?

Question: who is in a power sharing agreement

Question: How much was offered in aid?

Answer: "Whether it is humanitarian aid or transitional support, it adds up to the relief that Zimbabwe is seeking,"

Answer: Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai

Answer: he is grateful for the generosity.

Answer: Robert Mugabe

Answer: Mugabe

Answer: Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai

Answer: $73 million

Answer: Zimbabwe."

Answer: $73 million

Summary:
President Obama praises Zimbabwe PM Tsvangirai, offers $73 million in aid .
Tsvangirai in power-sharing agreement with Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe .
Tsvangirai on Mugabe relationship: "We don't have to fall in love to work together"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House did not intend to show any disrespect toward Nancy Reagan when it failed to invite the former first lady -- a vigorous supporter of stem-cell research -- to a bill-signing ceremony on the subject, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. Nancy Reagan watches President Obama sign the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act Tuesday. "I think she speaks in real personal terms about the issue," Gibbs told reporters. "And I think her candor and her courage have been heartening, and we certainly meant no slight to her whatsoever." On Monday, Vanity Fair published an interview with Nancy Reagan on its Web site in which she suggested the Obama administration missed an opportunity by not inviting her to witness President Obama signing a measure in March expanding federal support for stem-cell research. The former first lady has long promoted such steps despite objections from many in the GOP. She has argued that expanded stem-cell research could have helped her husband, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. "I would have gone, and you know I don't like to travel," she told the magazine.  Watch more on Gibbs' reaction to the controversy » "Politically, it would have been a good thing for (Obama) to do. Oh well, nobody's perfect. He called and thanked me for working on it. But he could have gotten more mileage out of it," she said. Gibbs' comments also come the same day Mrs. Reagan attended a White House ceremony marking Obama's signing of legislation authorizing a Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission. The 11-member commission will plan activities marking Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday on February 6, 2011.  Watch Obama laud Reagan's optimism » Mrs. Reagan is slated to attend the unveiling of a new statue of President Reagan on Wednesday morning at the Capitol and then share a private White House lunch with first lady Michelle Obama. Obama issued an apology to Mrs. Reagan earlier this year after joking in a news conference that she held seances during her years in the White House -- an apparent reference to reports she consulted with astrologists during her husband's presidency.

Question: What does Reagan support?

Question: What day is the event occurring on?

Question: What is the name of the former first lady?

Question: What is going to be unveiled Wednesday?

Question: Who should have invited Reagan to bill signing?

Question: What is being unveiled on Wednesday?

Question: What event is she attending?

Question: Nancy Reagan supports what

Question: what did mrs. reagan tell the magazine

Question: what did she tell magazine?

Question: does nancy reagan support stem-cell research

Question: what did she witness?

Question: who is a strong supporter of stem-cell research?

Question: Which statue will be unveiled

Answer: stem-cell research.

Answer: Tuesday.

Answer: Nancy Reagan

Answer: a new statue of President Reagan

Answer: The White House

Answer: a new statue of President Reagan

Answer: the unveiling of a new statue of President Reagan

Answer: stem-cell research.

Answer: "I would have gone, and you know I don't like to travel,"

Answer: "I would have gone, and you know I don't like to travel,"

Answer: a vigorous supporter

Answer: President Obama signing a measure in March expanding federal support for stem-cell research.

Answer: Nancy Reagan

Answer: President Reagan

Summary:
Former first lady Nancy Reagan is a strong supporter of stem-cell research .
Mrs. Reagan tells magazine: Obama should have invited me to stem-cell bill signing .
She's slated to attend the unveiling of a new statue of President Reagan Wednesday .
She witnesses signing of Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission legislation .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has invoked executive privilege to keep President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, from having to testify Thursday about the firings of at least eight U.S. attorneys. The White House invoked executive privilege to keep

Karl Rove from having to testify Thursday. Rove, "as an immediate adviser to the president," can't be ordered to testify and has been told not to appear, White House Counsel Fred Fielding told the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee called Rove and his deputy, Scott Jennings, to testify Thursday morning. The White House says it is trying to protect the president's ability to receive candid advice and offered to let top aides discuss the firings only if they were not placed under oath and no transcript was taken. "It is regretted that the committee has forced this action, as the president's offer of accommodation to you and to the House Judiciary Committee could have provided information being sought in a manner respectful of presidential prerogatives and consistent with a spirit of comity," Fielding wrote. But Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, accused the White House of trying to cover up Rove's role in the firings. He questioned why Rove discussed the matter publicly when the issue first made news, but now "is suddenly unable to talk it about when he is under oath." "Mr. Rove has given reasons for the firings that have now been shown to be inaccurate, after-the-fact fabrications," Leahy said in a statement issued Wednesday evening. "Yet he now refuses to tell this committee the truth about his role in targeting well-respected U.S. attorneys for firing and in seeking to cover up his role and that of his staff in the scandal." Mark Paoletta, a lawyer for Jennings, told CNN his client will appear before the Judiciary Committee but would refuse to answer questions he feels are covered by executive privilege. Former White House political director Sara Taylor testified under similar circumstances in July. The White House already has invoked executive privilege to block previous testimony by Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who skipped a hearing in the House two weeks ago, and to keep Chief of Staff Josh Bolten from turning over documents subpoenaed as part of the inquiry. The panel voted to cite Miers and Bolten for contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas. The decision on whether to pursue any action on those citations lies with the Justice Department. The privilege claim can be challenged in court. But Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said the courts would be unlikely to resolve any challenge before Bush leaves office. Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the congressional investigation of the attorney firings as a "witch hunt" during a CNN interview Tuesday. Democratic congressional leaders, however, say administration officials have been unable to answer their most basic questions -- who compiled the list of prosecutors to be dismissed, and why were they selected? While the Bush administration has maintained that the prosecutors' firings were handled properly, the controversy has led to the resignations of at least three top Justice Department officials and triggered widespread criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who repeatedly told a Senate committee in April that he did not recall details of the firings. Critics say the attorneys were forced out for political reasons, such as for failing to bring voter fraud cases pushed by Republican activists, and administration officials have acknowledged that one was fired to allow a Rove protege to take a post in Arkansas. E-mail to a friend CNN's Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.

Question: What did the senator accuse the White House of trying to cover up?

Question: Who invoked executive privilege to block other advisors testimony?

Question: what says White House?

Question: Who is Karl Rove?

Answer: of

Answer: The White House has

Answer: trying to protect the president's ability to receive candid advice and offered to let top aides discuss the firings only if they were not placed under oath and no transcript was taken.

Answer: President Bush's top political

Summary:
Executive privilege to keep Karl Rove from testifying about attorney firings .
White House says it is trying to protect president's ability to receive candid advice .
White House invoked executive privilege to block other advisers' testimony .
Senator accuses White House of trying to cover up Rove's role in the firings .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has provided the use of a government airplane to a key Democratic senator in order to ensure the availability of what may prove to be the deciding 60th vote in favor of the $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, could represent the decisive 60th vote on the $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has returned to his home state to attend a wake for his 88-year-old mother, who died February 2 from complications from leukemia. At the end of the wake, Brown will be flown from Mansfield, Ohio, to Andrews Air Force Base.

After he casts his vote, he will return to Ohio for his mother's funeral early Saturday.

The plane is being provided by the White House, Brown's office said, because the vote is considered "official business," and there are no commercial flights available that would allow him to cast the vote and return to Ohio for his mother's funeral Saturday morning.

A White House official refused to provide a cost estimate for the military plane, but acknowledged "it will be a higher cost than if he were flying commercial."

The official said it is a "small government plane."

"Taking immediate action to save or create 3.5 million jobs and get America's economy moving again is a top priority for Ohio and the nation," said the White House official. "Given that no commercial flights were available that would allow Sen. Brown to make the vote and to attend services memorializing his mother, the administration provided government transportation to ensure that he could do so."

While the final Senate vote on the stimulus plan began at 5:30 p.m. ET, senators are expected to be allowed to vote until after 10:30 p.m., giving Brown enough time to return to the Capitol.

CNN's Ed Henry and Ted Barrett contributed to this report

Question:
What is being provided?
Which vote is he possibly representing?
What will he be borrowing?
Who died at age 88?
What is he voting on?
Who will cast the 60th vote?

Answer: the use of a government airplane

Answer: 60th

Answer: government airplane

Answer: mother,

Answer: the $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Answer: Sen. Sherrod Brown,

Summary:
White House provides plane to Democratic senator so he can vote on stimulus bill .
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, may represent the decisive 60th vote on measure .
Brown will vote between wake and funeral in Ohio for his mother, who died at age 88 .
White House official says loaner is a "small government plane"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is blasting Congressional Democrats for not sending a bill that would fund veterans' care programs to the president's desk by Veterans Day.

The White House's Dana Perino accused Democrats of holding veterans care funding hostage.

"There's absolutely no reason that the veterans' bill could not have been signed by the president today, except for the political games that the Democrats decided to play with it," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Sunday in Crawford, Texas.

Congressional Democrats had attached legislation funding veterans programs to a $150.7 billion bill that also funded a number of domestic priorities, including health, labor and education. Democrats also added $3.7 billion to what the president budgeted for veterans programs.

The labor-health-education bill would increase funding by more than $10 billion over last year's funding for those programs. The president has threatened to veto the bill because of the added spending.

The House passed a health-labor-education bill 269-142 last week with the veterans funding attached, but the Senate later voted to strip out the veterans funding and send the health-labor-education bill to the president.

Perino accused the Democrats of "trying to hold hostage our veterans to extra domestic spending or increases in taxes."

"The president wants clean legislation, a clean bill to fund the veterans," Perino said.

On Saturday, the Democratic congressional leadership sent a letter to President Bush saying they welcomed a dialogue on spending, sayings disagreements over funding levels "have never been so great that we cannot reach agreement on a spending plan that meets the needs of the American people."

"Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in the letter.

The leadership said last year's Congress, which was still under Republican control, had never passed a separate bill funding veterans programs.

Congress also sent to the president legislation that would fund veterans care at the levels requested by the president through December 14, the leadership said.

The current funding level "is still below the $3.9 billion extra that we passed," said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman Pelosi. "We are committed to getting the extra funding that the Congress already voted on the president's desk for his signature."

The leadership blamed Republican members of Congress for stalling the funding for the veterans programs by blocking its inclusion in the larger spending bill.

Perino, though, said the Democrats could still send a separate bill to the president funding the veterans program that passed both chambers of Congress.

"The Democrats decided not to send the president this bill," Perino said. "That has to be laid at their feet." E-mail to a friend

CNN's Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Question: What did the democrats call the White House for?

Question: What was the funding for?

Question: Who wants a clean bill only funding veterens programmes?

Question: what white house accuses Democrats of?

Question: What do Democrats ask Whitehouse?

Question: What are Democrats accused of by White House?

Question: What did the White House accuse Democrats of?

Question: Who is holding veteran care hostage?

Question: What dispute is going on in the White House?

Question: What was the fundinga attached to

Question: What do the Democrats want?

Question: What do White House officials say they want?

Question: what is the health-labor-education bill?

Question: What did the White House accuse the Democrats of?

Question: What bill was the funding attached to?

Question: What does the White House accuse Democrats for

Question: Who does the White House want the clean bill to fund?

Question: What do Democrats want to discuss with the White House?

Answer: of holding veterans care funding hostage.

Answer: veterans' care programs

Answer: "The president

Answer: not sending a bill

Answer: welcomed a dialogue on spending,

Answer: would fund veterans' care programs

Answer: holding veterans care funding hostage.

Answer: Democrats

Answer: veterans' bill

Answer: legislation funding veterans programs

Answer: a number of domestic priorities, including health, labor and education.

Answer: clean legislation, a clean bill to fund the veterans,"

Answer: veterans funding

Answer: not sending a bill that

Answer: that also funded a number of domestic priorities, including health, labor and education.

Answer: holding veterans care funding hostage.

Answer: veterans' care programs

Answer: spending,

Summary:
White House accuses Democrats of holding hostage funding for veterans care .
Funding was attached to large health-labor-education bill .
White House says it wants a clean bill that only funds veterans programs .
Democrats call on White House to engage in a dialogue on spending levels .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House refused to indicate Monday whether President Obama will issue a posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson, the African-American boxing champion convicted in 1913 for dating a white woman. Jack Johnson's 1910 defeat of Jim Jeffries, the "Great White Hope," sparked riots. The House of Representatives on July 29 unanimously passed a resolution urging Obama to grant a pardon; the Senate passed a similar measure by a voice vote on June 24. The push for a rare posthumous pardon has been spearheaded for years by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Rep. Peter King, R-New York, two of Congress' top boxing enthusiasts. "It is our hope that you will be eager to agree to right this wrong and erase an act of racism that sent an American citizen to prison," they wrote Friday in a letter to Obama. Johnson, the first African-American to win the heavyweight title, was convicted for violating the Mann Act, which outlawed the transportation of women across state lines for "immoral" purposes. He served 10 months in prison on charges "brought forward clearly to keep him away from the boxing ring, where he continued to defeat his white opponents," McCain and King said. Almost a century after Johnson's conviction, his compelling saga has continued to capture the interest of sports writers, civil rights activists and historians. It provides, they agree, a unique window into American politics and culture at a time when Jim Crow-style racism reigned supreme. Johnson was first arrested for breaking the Mann Act in 1912, four years after winning the heavyweight crown. That case fell apart, but investigators soon after charged him with a similar offense involving a woman he had dated years earlier. Justice Department lawyers argued it was a "crime against nature" for him to have a sexual relationship with a white woman. Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, later to become the first commissioner of Major League Baseball, set Johnson's bail at $30,000, the equivalent of more than $660,000 today. When a bail bondsman showed up, Landis jailed him, too, according to an account that filmmaker Ken Burns relays in his documentary "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson." An all-white jury convicted Johnson in less than two hours. "Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but ... it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks," one of the prosecutors later said. Johnson's real crime, in the eyes of many, was committed on July 4, 1910, when he successfully defended his boxing title against Jim Jeffries, a white boxer who came to be called the "Great White Hope" because many white fans saw him as the best chance to wrest back a boxing title from the African-American champ. Johnson beat Jeffries, who had come out of retirement for the fight, before a stunned, almost entirely white crowd in Reno, Nevada. Race riots followed. More than 20 people were killed and hundreds were injured. Most victims were black. So when they "couldn't beat him in the ring, the white power establishment decided to beat him in the courts," Burns said in his documentary. Johnson fled to Europe in 1913 while free on appeal. But after years of fights overseas, including the eventual loss of his title in Havana, Cuba, in 1915, Johnson came home. He turned himself over to U.S. authorities at the Mexican border in 1920 and served 10 months in prison. He died in a car wreck in 1946. "Back then, if you were black and you were told that you did something wrong, you really had no recourse," Linda Haywood, Johnson's great-niece, recently told CNN. "You just accepted what was done because black people were basically powerless and voiceless. Jack may have been a rich boxer, but he couldn't fight the system." McCain and King introduced resolutions calling for a presidential pardon

Question: Who was convicted in 1913?

Question: What year was Jack Johnson convicted?

Question: when were the resolutions passed

Question: who is jack johnson

Question: What number of months did Johnson serve in prison?

Question: Who is backing the posthumous pardon?

Question: what was the charge

Answer: Jack Johnson,

Answer: 1913

Answer: July 29

Answer: African-American boxing champion

Answer: 10

Answer: The House of Representatives

Answer: violating the Mann Act,

Summary:
Jack Johnson, the African-American boxing champion, convicted in 1913 .
Sen. John McCain, Rep. Peter King back posthumous pardon .
Resolutions passed House and Senate this summer .
Johnson served 10 months in prison for dating a white woman .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House released the text Monday of a controversial back-to-school speech to students from President Obama. The uproar over President Obama's back-to-school speech led the White House to release the transcript Monday. Many conservatives have expressed a fear that the address would be used to push a partisan political agenda. In the text of the speech, however, Obama avoids any mention of controversial political initiatives. He repeatedly urges students to work hard and stay in school. "No matter what you want to do with your life, I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it," he says. "This isn't just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country." The text of the 18-minute speech was posted on the White House Web site so people can read it before its scheduled Internet broadcast to schoolchildren Tuesday. Read text of Obama's speech to students (pdf) Some of the president's critics have been adamantly opposed to the idea of an address by Obama to children. "The president's speeches tend to be [about] what's wrong with the country and what can we do to fix it," said Bill Hogsett, a parent from Dallas, Texas. "I believe this is the greatest country on Earth, and I try to teach that to my children. ... I don't want them hearing that there's a fundamental flaw with the country and the kids need to go forward to fix it." Hogsett, who spoke Monday shortly before Obama's remarks were released, said he wanted to read the speech before making a final judgment. Amy Veasley, another parent from the Dallas area, said she was surprised by the controversy. "The president of our country wants to call our students to action. I'm not sure why parents wouldn't want their students to hear out the leader of our country," she said. A Baltimore, Maryland, teacher who asked not to be identified bemoaned the fact that the country has "become so polarized that we believe that our president is an enemy and not our leader." During Bush's presidency, she said, "whether I disagreed or not, I still saw him as a leader." On Sunday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that parents who are threatening to keep their children home Tuesday to avoid Obama's speech were being "silly." Appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Duncan emphasized that it is up to school officials whether to include the speech in the day's activities and that the message of the speech is simply to encourage children to finish school. "That's just silly," he said of anyone planning to have their kids stay home because of the speech. "They can go to school. They can not watch." The speech is about "the president challenging young people," Duncan asserted. Some school administrators have decided to show the president's speech, but others will not.  Watch CNN's Ed Henry talk about school speech uproar » Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a possible contender for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, said Sunday that Obama's speech would disrupt an already-hectic first day of school for many students. "I think there's concerns about the disruption," he said on CNN's "State of the Union," calling the scheduling of the speech a "little ham-fisted" by the White House.  Watch school reject Obama's speech on education » "There [are] also concerns about is this going to be done in an appropriate manner. I trust and hope that the White House will have a content that is not political and they're not using the public school infrastructure for that purpose." Duncan, however, noted Obama's speech is not unprecedented. President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington school in fall 1991, encouraging them to say

Question: What does Secretary of Education Arne Duncan think?

Question: What does Obama say about education?

Question: who says "No matter what you want to do ... you'll need an education"?

Question: What has Obama said?

Question: what Speech posted on Web site Monday for parents?

Question: What are the thoughts of  Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty?

Question: who posted the speech

Question: What does President Obama say?

Question: Where was the speech posted

Question: who is the education secretary

Question: Which State Gov. said speech could cause first day disruption

Question: who is the govenor

Question: What is the Secretary of Educations's name?

Question: What state is Tim Pawlenty governor of?

Answer: parents who are threatening to keep their children home Tuesday to avoid Obama's speech were being "silly."

Answer: "This isn't just important for your own life and your own future.

Answer: President Obama.

Answer: "This isn't just important for your own life and your own future.

Answer: President Obama's back-to-school

Answer: that Obama's speech would disrupt an already-hectic first day of school for many students.

Answer: The White House

Answer: you want to do with your life, I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it,"

Answer: on the White House Web site

Answer: Arne Duncan

Answer: Minnesota

Answer: Tim Pawlenty,

Answer: Arne Duncan

Answer: Minnesota

Summary:
Speech posted on Web site Monday for parents, pundits to view .
Obama says, "No matter what you want to do ... you'll need an education"
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: "Silly" of parents to keep kids out of school .
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: Speech could cause first-day "disruption"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said it had no comment Monday in response to the upcoming release of a new Michelle Obama action-figure doll. The Michelle Obama doll is available in three outfits, all of which show off her trademark bare arms. The 6-inch doll is made by New York toymaker Jailbreak Toys and is set for release on November 20, but the company began work on the new product six or seven months ago, according to Jason Feinberg, Jailbreak Toys' 32-year-old founder. "The entire political scene was a little rosier at the time," Feinberg said in a phone interview, "But what was really apparent was the country, and really the world at large, were very enamored of this lady." Feinberg, whose company began selling a Barack Obama action-figure doll in mid-2008, said that Michelle Obama's "energy" was "muted, subdued, classy" coming out of last year's campaign while her husband's image was much more like that of a superhero. The new Michelle Obama doll is available in three outfits: the purple dress worn when the Obamas shared their famous fist bump during the campaign, the red and black dress she wore on Election Night and the black-and-white floral dress she wore during an appearance on "The View." All three dolls show Michelle Obama in a sheath dress and with bare arms, attributes that have become personal trademarks during her tenure as first lady. Feinberg said his target audience for the new doll is not children but adults "who collected toys as a child, who haven't lost that kind of whimsical enthusiasm." Like Jailbreak's Barack Obama doll, the new Michelle Obama doll will retail for $12.99, according to Feinberg. Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for the first lady, said in an e-mail to CNN that the White House had no comment on the new doll. When the company behind Beanie Babies began selling dolls named "Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha" soon after Inauguration Day, the White House had a swift and strong reaction. "We feel it is inappropriate to use young private citizens for marketing purposes," the first lady's spokeswoman said at the time.

Question: How much will the doll be available for?

Question: What is the name of toymaker  of 6-inch doll?

Question: Are they intended for kids?

Question: What price will be for the doll?

Question: What Jailbreak`s said about the doll?

Question: Who makes the 6-inch doll?

Question: Who said, "Target audience is adults who collected toys as a child?"

Answer: $12.99,

Answer: Jailbreak Toys

Answer: the new doll is not children but adults

Answer: $12.99,

Answer: "The entire political scene was a little rosier at the time,"

Answer: Jailbreak Toys

Answer: Jason Feinberg,

Summary:
The 6-inch doll is made by New York toymaker Jailbreak Toys .
Jailbreak's Jason Feinberg: Target audience is adults "who collected toys as a child"
New doll, which will be available November 20, will retail for $12.99 .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The alleged pirate apprehended by the U.S. Navy after the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama is en route to New York, according to defense officials.

The USS Bainbridge tows the lifeboat in which Capt. Robert Phillips was held for days.

He was handed over to federal authorities by the U.S. military in Djibouti, the officials said.

The suspected pirate, known in official documents as "Pirate Defendant," was brought to Djibouti aboard the USNS Walter S. Diehl, a refueling ship that was with the warship USS Bainbridge at the scene of the failed hijacking that turned into a hostage ordeal 350 miles off the Somalian coast.

Three pirates who were holding the Maersk Alabama's captain in the ship's lifeboat were killed by Navy SEALs.

The survivor had surrendered and was aboard the Bainbridge when the captain, Richard Phillips, was rescued, officials said. From the Bainbridge, he was transferred to the USS Boxer for medical treatment. He was wounded when crew members of the Maersk Alabama took him hostage in the early hours of the pirate attack on the cargo ship, according to the military.  See an interactive map of 2009 pirate attacks off the Horn of Africa »

The crew members had hoped to exchange him for their captain, but the pirates did not release Phillips when the crew returned their captive.  "I'm mad because, you know, I could have been dead right now," Ken Quinn, the Maersk Alabama's navigation officer, told CNN Radio Monday. "But at the same time he's just a little skinny guy, you know, from Somalia where they're all starving and stuff."

Quinn said he wasn't angry at the single alleged pirate, noting piracy in the region is fueled by the desire to survive hardship and poverty. He said the suspect told him he wanted to go the United States, and asked whether Quinn could help him get there.

"I said, 'Yeah, you're probably going to go anyway -- I don't think you're going to need my help,' " Quinn said. "If he goes to jail here, it will be a whole lot better than living in Somalia."

CNN Radio's Steve Kastenbaum in New York contributed to this report.

Question: Which refueling ship was used?

Question: Where was the pirate brought?

Question: what Alleged pirate brought to Djibouti aboard the USNS Walter S.?

Question: what Alleged pirate known in official documents?

Question: What did the documents discuss?

Question: Where were the U.S. officials located?

Answer: USNS Walter S. Diehl,

Answer: New York,

Answer: "Pirate Defendant,"

Answer: "Pirate Defendant,"

Answer: "Pirate Defendant,"

Answer: Djibouti,

Summary:
Alleged pirate known in official documents as "Pirate Defendant"
Alleged pirate brought to Djibouti aboard the USNS Walter S. Diehl, a refueling ship .
Handed over to federal authorities by the U.S. military in Djibouti, officials said .
Diehl was with the warship USS Bainbridge at the scene of a failed hijacking .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The bay pilot who steered a container ship into the San Francisco Bay Bridge in 2007, causing a massive oil spill, pleaded guilty Friday to violating misdemeanor pollution laws and faces up to 10 months in prison, federal prosecutors said. The Korean-flagged Cosco Busan rammed into San Francisco's Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007. Prosecutors dropped felony charges against him. John Joseph Cota, 61, pleaded guilty to violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a law enacted in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.   Cota gave orders to officers controlling the Korean-flagged Cosco Busan as the ship was leaving fog-shrouded San Francisco Bay, California, on November 7, 2007. The 901-foot ship struck fenders around the base of a bridge support tower, rupturing two of the ship's fuel tanks and spilling about 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay. At least 2,000 migratory birds were killed. At the time, officials estimated clean-up costs at $60 million. "Today's guilty plea is a reminder that the Cosco Busan crash was not just an accident, but a criminal act," said John C. Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "John Cota was an experienced ship pilot that was handsomely compensated for his special knowledge of ships and expertise in local waters. His failure to act prudently under the circumstances caused a major environmental disaster that could have been far worse," said Joseph Russoniello, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California. Cota has piloted about 4,000 ships in the bay during his 27-year career, said his attorney, Jeffrey Bornstein. Bonstein said Cota is remorseful and accepts responsibility for his part in the accident. But Bornstein also criticized the accident investigation. He said it was unfair and protected others who also bear responsibility. "Captain Cota has been vilified by the media, lost his job, will now go to jail for at least 60 days, and still suffers under the weight of crushing civil lawsuits," Bornstein said. "He understands and accepts responsibility for his part in the accident and hopes that others will step forward and accept their roles and responsibilities as well." Cota will be sentenced to 2 to 10 months in prison and be fined between $3,000 and $30,000, if the plea terms are accepted by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston. Sentencing is scheduled for June 19. Prosecutors said the plea included factual admissions by Cota, including an acknowledgment his negligence "was a proximate cause of the [oil] discharge." Cota also admitted that he failed to discuss the planned route with the ship's master or crew as required, or to use the ship's radar in the final approach to the bridge. He also failed to recognize two red triangles on the ship's electronic chart system that marked bridge tower buoys. Attorney Bornstein said the ship's master told Cota the red triangles represented the lights on the bridge, "which in Capt. Cota's knowledge were at the center of the span. He had no reason to think that the master didn't know what he was talking about." See the path As part of the plea agreement with Cota, the government agreed to dismiss false statement charges pending against him. Those charges alleged that Cota failed to disclose his medications on required Coast Guard forms. The court ruled those charges would be tried separately. But Cota admitted in the plea papers filed Friday his 2006 physical exam form failed to disclose some of the medications he was prescribed. Among them were two pain medications, three different drugs prescribed as sleeping aids and an antidepressant prescribed for an off-brand purpose. Bornstein said there is no evidence that medication played any role in the accident. At Friday's hearing, Illston set trial for the remaining defendant in the case, the ship's manager, Fleet Management Ltd. (Hong Kong), for Sept. 14. The charges include acting negligently, killing protected migratory birds, obstructing justice and making false statements by falsifying ship records after

Question: In 2007, what happened to San Francisco" Bay Bridge?

Question: What is the name of the pilot facing 10 years in prison?

Question: What did federal prosecutors say?

Question: What was the cost for clean up oil spilled?

Question: When did the Cosco Busan crash into San Francisco's Bay Bridge?

Question: What killed more than 2,000 birds?

Question: Who pleaded guilty to violating misdemeanor pollution laws?

Question: How much did the oil spill cost to clean up?

Question: Where did the ship slammed into?

Answer: The Korean-flagged Cosco Busan rammed into

Answer: John Joseph Cota,

Answer: Prosecutors said the plea included factual admissions by Cota, including an acknowledgment his negligence "was a proximate cause of the [oil] discharge."

Answer: $60 million.

Answer: November 7, 2007.

Answer: a massive oil spill,

Answer: John Joseph Cota,

Answer: $60 million.

Answer: San Francisco's Bay Bridge

Summary:
John Joseph Cota pleads guilty to violating misdemeanor pollution laws .
The pilot faces up to 10 months in prison, federal prosecutors say .
Container ship Cosco Busan slammed into San Francisco's Bay Bridge in 2007 .
Massive oil spill killed more than 2,000 birds and cost $60 million to clean up .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The beautifully ornate Catholic church in the nation's capital has seen its share of history and controversy. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Chief Justice John Roberts attend Red Mass in 2005. In 1963, the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle was the site of John F. Kennedy's funeral. After the service, on the steps outside, the slain president's young son famously saluted his father's memory. But the church is also the site of an annual Mass that has drawn criticism for what many see as an unhealthy mix of politics, the law and religion. Washington's annual Red Mass, which celebrates the legal profession, will be held this year on Sunday, October 4 -- the day before the Supreme Court begins its new term. Several justices traditionally attend, along with congressional leaders, diplomats, cabinet secretaries and other dignitaries. Past presidents have also attended, though there is no word yet on whether President Obama will appear. It is a Catholic service, but power brokers of other faiths are asked to attend the invitation-only event. Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish, is a regular. The Mass "takes its name from the color of the vestments. ... [It] goes back centuries, to Rome, to France to England," Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl said. "There was the idea [to] bring all the people who are involved in the law ... once a year so that together, they can simply pray for the wisdom of God." The church, built starting in the 19th century, is considered one of Washington's hidden gems. Tucked between modern office buildings a few blocks from the White House, it is a mix of architectural styles, a hint of ancient Roman style, a splash from the Italian Renaissance and a definite Byzantine flavor. St. Matthew, noted Monsignor Ronald Jameson, was the patron saint of civil servants, appropriate in a city where the federal government dominates the workforce. Five justices attended last year's Red Mass, which was similar in tone to other recent gatherings. Cardinal John Patrick Foley, who has held several prominent positions in the Catholic Church, noted many parts of the Bible "sound very much like American ideals" and reminded the members of the high court to build a society "of justice, of peace and of love." Critics of the service, however, find the attendance of leading decision-makers, including members of the highest court in the land, to be inappropriate. "The truth is, this was set up as a way to basically lecture and give information to the justices," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is no other institution that has this special way to talk to the justices on the Supreme Court." The Red Mass was started in Washington in 1952 by the John Carroll Society, a lay Catholic group of prominent lawyers and professionals. Chief Justice John Roberts' wife, Jane, is an officer of the group. Lynn, an ordained minister with the United Church of Christ, noted the Mass was begun after several high court decisions that were disapproved of by the archdiocese. "They figured if they got all the justices together and chatted them up in a worship service, they might be able to convince them to see the law their way," he said. In 1989, a top church official used the occasion of the Mass to call for a return to "religiously based moral values" and lament the "inviolable, impenetrable and towering wall" between church and state. In 1986, Washington Cardinal James Hickey attacked the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. Among those in attendance that year were then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and William Brennan, both Catholics. One member of the court who no longer attends is Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, like Breyer, is Jewish. Ginsberg said she grew tired of being lectured to by Catholic officials. "I went one year, and I will never go again,

Question: what several Supreme Court justices regularly attend?

Question: What do critics say the Mass is set up to do?

Question: When did it begin?

Question: What do critics say

Question: When did the mass begin

Question: What does the Annual Catholic Mass in Washington celebrate?

Question: What does the annual catholic mass celebrate

Question: what It is touted as a chance for those involved in law?

Answer: Red Mass,

Answer: lecture and give information

Answer: Sunday, October 4

Answer: the attendance of leading decision-makers, including members of the highest court in the land, to be inappropriate.

Answer: 1952

Answer: the legal profession,

Answer: the legal profession,

Answer: pray

Summary:
Annual Catholic Mass in Washington celebrates the legal profession .
It began in 1952; several Supreme Court justices regularly attend .
It is touted as a chance for those involved in law to pray for wisdom .
Critic says Mass set up to "lecture and give information to the justices"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The case against a Marine accused of murder in a 2005 incident involving the killings of Iraqi civilians in Haditha "is simply not strong enough to prove against a reasonable doubt," the investigating officer said Thursday. The investigating officer has recommended that Sgt. Frank Wuterich not be tried for murder. Lt. Col. Paul Ware recommended that Sgt. Frank Wuterich face trial for lesser charges of negligent homicide. The case involved allegations that Marines killed up to two dozen Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.  Ware said the evidence indicated Wuterich "failed to exercise due care in his own actions in supervising his Marines." "When a Marine fails to exercise due care in a combat environment resulting in the death of innocents, the charge of negligent homicide, not murder, is the appropriate offense," he said in a statement.   The recommendation goes to Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the commanding general overseeing the case, who will make the final decision.  If the recommendation is accepted, it could mean that no one in the Haditha case will be tried for murder. Four enlisted Marines were initially accused in the case, and charges against two have been dropped. Murder charges remain against Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, although Ware has recommended dropping all charges against him. Ware said the evidence is too weak for a court martial. Four officers were later accused of failing to investigate and report the deaths properly. Charges against two of them have been dropped. Haditha, along the Euphrates River, was the target of previous Marine campaigns aimed at rooting out insurgents. Wuterich was leading a patrol through the city on November 19, 2005, when the unit was hit by a roadside bomb that killed one of its members. Twenty-four civilians were killed in what a human rights group and military prosecutors said was a house-to-house rampage by Marines after the bomb exploded. The military began investigating the killings in March 2006, and charges were brought the following December. A statement from the Marine Corps originally blamed the civilian deaths on the roadside bomb, triggering a parallel investigation into how commanders handled the incident. Arrest made in terrorist financing case Earlier Thursday, the U.S. military announced the arrest of a man who smuggled $100 million into Iraq during the past few months to finance terrorist operations. The unidentified man, arrested Tuesday near Baghdad, allegedly employs 40 to 50 extremists at $3,000 per job for al Qaeda in Iraq bomb attacks against coalition forces, using money from supporters outside Iraq, the military said. "The extremist financier is suspected of traveling to foreign countries to acquire financial support for terrorist activities and is suspected of supplying more than $50,000 to al Qaeda each month," the military said. The suspect, captured during a coalition raid in Kindi, operates a network of financing cells across Iraq, the military said. "He is believed to have received $100 million this summer from terrorist supporters who cross the Iraq border illegally or fly into Iraq from Italy, Syria and Egypt," the military said. The $100 million figure is based on intelligence report estimates over several months, a spokesman for Multi-National Corps-Iraq said. The man is also accused of purchasing some of the explosives and weapons used in the 2006 attack on Samarra's al-Askariya mosque, also known as the Golden Mosque, and a second attack on it in 2007. The attacks heightened sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. During a separate operation in Radwaniya on Tuesday, Iraqi forces detained a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq platoon leader who commands 15 men in attacks on Iraqi and coalition forces with roadside bombs and direct assaults, the military said. Meanwhile, an Iraqi Ministry of Information spokesman said Thursday that Iraq has entered into a "substantial" deal with China to purchase weapons and light military equipment for its police forces, because the Asian nation promised the fastest delivery. Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf told CNN he was unable to confirm that his country was spending $

Question: Who is the financier that paid for roadside bombs?

Question: who buys weapons?

Question: how much was paid?

Question: Who is advising that nobody be tried for murder?

Question: How much was paid for roadside bomb?

Answer: unidentified man,

Answer: unidentified man,

Answer: $3,000 per job

Answer: The investigating officer

Answer: $3,000 per job

Summary:
If advice accepted, it could mean no one in Haditha case will be tried for murder .
Iraq to buy weapons from China; $100 million worth, Washington Post says .
Pentagon: Detainee financed terror operations across country .
Financier allegedly paid $3,000 per roadside bomb operation .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The case of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on national television -- and subsequent fines against CBS -- will be re-examined at the order of the Supreme Court. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson perform at the Super Bowl just before the infamous "wardrobe malfunction." The justices Monday sent the case back to a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that had thrown out a $550,000 government fine against the broadcast network and its affiliates for airing the incident during halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl. The pop singer's breast was briefly exposed during a performance with singer Justin Timberlake. After viewer complaints and national media attention, the Federal Communications Commission said the Jackson incident was obscene. In addition to CBS Inc., 20 of its affiliates also were fined. Congress quickly reacted at the time to the visual shocker by increasing the limit on indecency fines tenfold, up to $325,000 per violation per network. And it said each local affiliate that aired such incidents also could be punished by the same amount. But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the communications commission had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously." The Supreme Court's action marks the second time in recent days that it has dealt with cases involving broadcast standards. Last week, the justices narrowly upheld the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to punish networks for airing profanity. The government clampdown on obscene images and words began in 2003. Enforcement of the law, as well as fines and sanctions for the incidents, have been put on hold while the cases are being argued. The television networks say their scripted shows no longer air nudity, racy images or expletives, even after 10 p.m., when some potentially vulgar words are permitted. They worry, however, about unplanned, often spontaneous indecent or profane incident at live events, such as awards shows and sporting events. Company officials say such programs are often on a five-second delay, and censors are on hand to bleep any offensive language. But some indecent words can slip through, they admit, and they want to be protected from heavy government fines. Critics call that laughable. "This past summer, CBS edited into a show that had to go through multiple reviews, by multiple people in the organization, the F-word," said Tim Winter, who heads the Parents Television Council, and is supporting the FCC's efforts. His group advocates "responsible" programming, and warns parents about questionable program content. The show in question was "Big Brother 10," a taped series. The Jackson incident was not on a five-second delay. CBS issued a statement Monday afternoon it is confident that the appeals court "will again recognize that the Super Bowl incident, while inappropriate and regrettable, was not and could not have been anticipated by CBS." The issue is an important one "for the entire broadcasting industry," it said, "because it recognizes that there are rare instances, particularly during live programming, when despite best efforts it may not be possible to block unfortunate fleeting material." In the case involving profane language, the high court concluded 5-4 that the communications commission has the authority to sanction broadcast TV networks that air isolated incidents of profanity, known as "fleeting expletives." But the justices in that case refused to decide whether the commission's policy violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. It ruled only on their enforcement power. The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a federal appeals court. The "wardrobe malfunction" case is FCC v. CBS Corp. (08-653).

Question: Which appeals court?

Question: What case will be re-examined?

Question: What case has the Supreme Court asked to be re-examined?

Question: Who flashed during the Super Bowl?

Question: Who were fined?

Answer: federal

Answer: Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on national television

Answer: Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on national television

Answer: Janet Jackson's

Answer: broadcast network and its affiliates

Summary:
U.S. Supreme Court has asked that "wardrobe malfunction" case be re-examined .
Janet Jackson inadvertently flashed breast during Super Bowl halftime show in 2004 .
CBS and several affiliates were fined; appeals court disagreed with decision .
Networks have clamped down on nudity, language; still worry some slips through .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The cause of a deadly Washington Metro subway crash last month remains a mystery, with one problem identified by investigators persisting even after engineers replaced a key part that was believed to be faulty, a top Metro official said Tuesday Investigators are shown at the crash scene in Washington. Nine people were killed in the June 22 accident. At a congressional hearing, Jim Graham said Metro replaced a device that was "fluttering," signaling the presence of a train one moment and not the next. "You'd think that that would remedy the issue, that ... we would have solved the problem," said Graham, chairman of Metro's board of directors. "In fact, the new device ... continued the same fluttering as the former device." "We're left with a very compelling mystery as to what is going on here," he said. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is leading the investigation, acknowledged that Metro's system of detecting trains continues to have unexplained, intermittent failures. "Sometimes it's working; sometimes it's not, even with those changes," NTSB member Deborah Hersman told a House committee. "We've walked back the cable to see if there might be some cabling issues. There's a lot of challenges here and we're changing out some components and trying to identify what the problem is," she said. Metro has said it will operate the subway trains on manual control until officials have identified and fixed the problem with the automatic train system. Nine people were killed and scores were injured during the June 22 crash just north of the Red Line's Fort Totten station. At Tuesday's hearing, a passenger on one of the trains gave a dramatic description of the accident. Patrick Tuite of Kensington, Maryland, said he had just put down his newspaper and closed his eyes to relax when he heard a screeching sound, someone yelling and "one of the loudest bangs I've ever heard in my life." Tuite said in the impact, he hit the seat in front of him. When Tuite peered into the forward-most car, he saw extensive damage. The floor of the car had collapsed "accordion-like," he said. "We could hear the people at this point in the first car," he said. "And it was pretty chaotic. They were screaming; they were upset," he said. But the collision had jammed the doors between the cars, making it impossible to reach victims in the front car. It wasn't until he got off the train that he realized the first car was thrust into the air, he said. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's Congressional delegate, chided the NTSB for making prohibitively costly safety recommendations while ignoring cheaper, common sense solutions, such as putting the newer, more robust rail cars at the front and back of trains. "Over and over again, you said, 'Do the impossible,' " Norton, a Democrat, said, referring to NTSB recommendations that Metro replace older cars with sturdier new ones. "Why didn't the transportation board at least recommend this rather low-tech, low-cost step?" Hersman said the NTSB's role is to push for safety improvements. "We do make recommendations, Ms. Norton, and we don't have to pay for them, so we recognize that frustration," she said. "But our charge is not to [consider costs]. Our charge is to recommend what we think is in the best interest of the safety community. We are the conscience and the compass of the transportation industry, and they [transportation providers and regulators] get to decide if and how they implement it," Hersman said.

Question: What happens despite repairs?

Question: How many were killed?

Question: Who is chided for making impossible recommendations?

Question: What does the passenger recall?

Question: What does passenger recall?

Question: Who did the delegates chide?

Question: How many people were killed?

Answer: deadly Washington Metro subway crash

Answer: Nine

Answer: the NTSB

Answer: he had just put down his newspaper and closed his eyes to relax when he heard a screeching sound, someone yelling and "one of the loudest bangs I've ever heard in my life."

Answer: he had just put down his newspaper and closed his eyes to relax when he heard a screeching sound, someone yelling and "one of the loudest bangs I've ever heard in my life."

Answer: the NTSB

Answer: Nine

Summary:
Unexplained, intermittent failures persist despite repairs, Metro official says .
Passenger recalls loud bang, "accordion-like" collapse of floor, screams .
Delegate chides NTSB for making high-cost, "impossible" recommendations .
9 people killed, scores injured in June 22 crash near Red Line's Fort Totten station .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chief executives of Ford and GM joined their Chrysler counterpart Tuesday in agreeing to accept salaries of $1 a year if Congress comes through with a bailout for the automakers.

Alan Mulally, chief executive officer of Ford Motor Co., has reversed course and will accept a salary of $1 a year.

The statements came as the Big Three automakers turned in financial plans to Congress, hoping to bolster their requests for $25 billion in bridge loans.

GM spokesman Steve Harris said CEO Rick Wagoner had agreed to accept a $1 salary. Harris didn't elaborate.

Ford Motor Company said the salary of its CEO, Alan Mulally, would be cut to $1 a year if Ford actually borrowed money from the government. When Mulally appeared before the House Financial Services Committee last month, he said he would not agree to a pay cut.

In his previous appearance before Congress, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli said he would accept a $1-per-year salary if it helped Chrysler obtain its share of the rescue package.

GM plans to display some of its new high-tech cars on Capitol Hill this week, a GM source told CNN.

About two weeks ago, congressional Democrats ordered executives of the three automakers to show that they have viable financial turnaround plans when they return later this week to Capitol Hill.  Watch why the Big Three are not all in same situation Â»

Ford released details of its turnaround plan in a written statement Tuesday. The automaker said that, based on current business planning assumptions, it  expects its overall and its North American automotive business pre-tax results to break even or be profitable in 2011.

The company also released initial details of an accelerated vehicle electrification plan for a family of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles. The plan includes a Ford full-battery electric vehicle (BEV) in a van for commercial fleet use in 2010 and a BEV sedan in 2011, the statement said.

Ford said it plans to invest about $14 billion in the United States on advanced technologies and products to improve fuel efficiency during the next seven years. It also said it will sell its corporate aircraft as part of its cash-improvement plan.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said he would not support a bailout package unless the companies could prove that they would be viable after the bailout.

Reid did not commit to holding a vote on the bailout package.

"No one is too big to fail," Reid said. "We hope we can work something out with them."

One of Reid's aides said the senator had not read the Ford plan yet because he was involved in back-to-back meetings.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler already have made sizable cuts in production and staffing throughout the year, with additional cuts expected in the next few months.

Their plans were being submitted to  the Democratic chairmen of the committees that will hear the automakers' requests -- Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, whose Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee convenes Thursday, and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose House Financial Services Committee meets Friday.

Lawmakers asked the automakers to describe how they will restructure their businesses to become more competitive. In general, the automakers have been asked to describe how much money they have, and how much they need to stay viable in the long term. Their plans also must address how the companies will meet health care and pension obligations to workers.

After being criticized during their last trip for arriving in Washington in corporate jets, Mulally and Wagoner are driving to the nation's capital in hybrid cars -- Mulally in a Ford Escape and Wagoner in a Chevrolet Malibu.

A Ford executive told CNN the company's plan, 20 to 30 pages long, was being e-mailed to Congress. He said the plan put a heavy emphasis on advanced technologies.

Ford is worried, however, that even after doing a "bang-up job" on its report, the company may not receive what it needs,

Question: How much money will each Big Three CEO take in salary?

Question: Who are the Big Three automakers?

Question: What kind of novel vehicles are being mentioned here?

Question: What congressman said "no one is too big to fail"?

Question: Who said, "no one is too big to fail"?

Question: Which executive drove to Washington?

Question: What are the executives driving in?

Question: Who will accept one dollar salaries?

Answer: $1 a year

Answer: Ford

Answer: hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric

Answer: Reid

Answer: Harry Reid,

Answer: Alan Mulally,

Answer: hybrid cars

Answer: chief executives of Ford and GM

Summary:
NEW: "No one is too big to fail," top Senate Democrat says .
All of the Big Three automaker CEOs say they'll accept salaries of $1 a year .
Auto execs return to Capitol Hill this week to offer plans for turnaround .
Executives driving to Washington from Detroit in hybrid vehicles .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander for NATO forces in Afghanistan said Wednesday that more military presence is "needed as quickly as possible." U.S. troops are seeing an increased threat in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan says. Gen. David McKiernan said the additional military capability is needed because of "an increased number of fighters" coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan's lawless tribal regions. "It's a significant increase from what we saw this time last year," he said at the Pentagon. "We're facing a tougher threat right now, especially in the east where we have the U.S. division," he said. "And so the additional military capability [is] needed as quickly as possible." He said what's necessary includes "boots on the ground" as well as support such as "helicopters, increased intelligence assets, logistics, transportation and so on." Just over a week ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that a Marine battalion will head to Afghanistan in November and an Army brigade in January, but no more forces will be available for deployment to Afghanistan until spring or summer of 2009. The week before Gates' announcement, McKiernan had asked for four more brigades -- three more than the one approved to go in January. Three brigades add up to as many as 12,000 troops. The defense secretary, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, expressed caution about adding too many troops in Afghanistan. "I think we need to think about how heavy a military footprint the U.S. ought to have in Afghanistan," he told the committee. Instead, Gates said, there should be a focus on increasing the size of the Afghan army. McKiernan, who took command of NATO's International Security Assistance Force earlier this year, said his request of an additional 3,500 people to train the Afghan army and police is still under review. McKiernan noted that he is "cautiously optimistic" regarding Pakistan's military operations against Taliban and al Qaeda fighters inside its borders. "What we're seeing is Pakistani leadership taking on a deteriorated militant sanctuary in the tribal areas that has deteriorated over last several years," he said. McKiernan said it is "probably too early" to see if Pakistan's military clampdown in its tribal areas has had any effect on stemming militant activity in Afghanistan. "We're watching those very closely to see if there's a cause and effect with the strength of the insurgency on the Afghan side of the border," he said. "But we think that's a positive step that they are taking on those militant sanctuaries."

Question: What did Gen. David McKiernan command them to do?

Question: What is the tougher threat?

Question: Where are the foreign fighters entering from?

Question: Who commands NATO forces?

Question: Where are the forces entering?

Answer: train the Afghan army

Answer: "an increased number of fighters" coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan's lawless tribal regions.

Answer: Pakistan's

Answer: Gen. David McKiernan

Answer: Afghanistan

Summary:
More foreign fighters entering Afghanistan from Pakistan, general says .
"We're facing a tougher threat," so more troops needed "as quickly as possible"
U.S. Gen. David McKiernan commands NATO forces in Afghanistan .
McKiernan has sought three more brigades of U.S. troops than one promised .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander in chief's priority is preventing another terrorist attack in the United States, President Bush told CNN's "Larry King Live" Tuesday. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush sit down with CNN's Larry King Live on Tuesday. "The most important job I have had -- and the most important job the next president is going to have -- is to protect the American people from another attack," Bush said. Accompanied by first lady Laura Bush and engaging in a wide-ranging conversation with King, Bush also said that his administration has been involved in stopping specific threats against the United States since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "We've learned a lot of information about al Qaeda that we didn't know before," Bush said of intelligence activities during his tenure as president. "We've stopped some specific threats -- we're decimating [al Qaeda's] leadership." He did not offer specifics, but he did offer a self-assessment of his leadership in national security post-9/11.  Watch Bush talk about the aftermath of 9/11 » "I told the American people I wouldn't tire and I wouldn't falter, and I haven't," the outgoing president said. Bush brushed off the low opinion-ratings and declining polls that have marked his waning presidency by saying, "Look, opinion polls are nothing but a shot of yesterday's news." "Opinion polls aren't going to be high when the economy is in the tank," he added. "People aren't happy with the economy. Neither am I. But you can't make decisions based on popularity polls." Bush took that train of thought on to another topic, Iraq. "If the military thinks you're making decisions based on the Gallup poll, they're not going to follow a commander in chief," he said. Asked about inaccurate intelligence reports on alleged weapons of mass destruction that led up to the war in Iraq, Bush refused to criticize the CIA, saying only that he was "disappointed." On Iraq, he maintained that actions taken by his administration were correct. "I don't think Iraq was wrong," Bush said in response to a question from King. "What I was worried about, (was) Iraq going to fail -- not Iraq was wrong," he said. "And the surge has worked and a young democracy in the heart of the Middle East has taken hold. There's more work to be done. But al Qaeda has been denied the base in which they wanted to operate.: When discussing the nation's economic slump, Bush cautioned his successor "not to become an economic forecaster once he gets to be president." King and Bush discussed President-elect Barack Obama's predictions for a bad year ahead for the U.S. economy and King asked Bush, "That's not a good idea to say?" "I don't think so. I think he can say it's going to be a tough period, but to predict what the economy is going to do ... it is going to be bad. How bad? How long?" Bush responded. "What he ought to be saying -- and I know he feels this way -- is he's going to take the steps he thinks are necessary to get us back on the road to recovery and we will recover." Bush said he is looking forward to the inaugurationTuesday, describing it as "a historic moment for the country." Asked by King if he liked Obama, Bush replied, "I do. I do like him. You'd like him, too." But Laura Bush said she took some of Obama's critiques of her husband personally. "Were you angry at it?" King asked. "Yes, sort of. George didn't really even know about it because he didn't really watch it that much," Laura Bush said, laughing.  Watch Laura Bush express her disapproval » "So what's

Question: Who does he caution?

Question: Bush cautioned who against making predictions?

Question: Who cautioned Obama?

Question: What is the most important job?

Answer: his successor

Answer: his successor

Answer: Bush

Answer: is to protect the American people from another attack,"

Summary:
"Most important job ... is to protect the American people," Bush tells CNN's Larry King .
Bush agrees rocky times are ahead, but cautions Obama against making predictions .
Outgoing president says Obama should talk more about getting on "road to recovery"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The defense secretary will not ban smoking by troops in war zones despite a recommendation to do so by a Pentagon-commissioned study. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he does not want to compound stress in combat zones by banning smoking. Secretary Robert Gates' decision stems from concern about the stress troops face, said his spokesman. "We are fighting two wars right now, using a force that we are demanding more of than we ever have before. They are under enormous stress and strain, and the secretary does not want to compound that stress by taking away from them one of the few outlets they have to relieve that stress," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday. A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform -- including combat troops in the thick of battle. According to the study, tobacco use impairs military readiness in the short term. Over the long term, it can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The study also says smokeless tobacco use can lead to oral and pancreatic cancer. Morrell said that Gates has not seen the report and will consider the recommendations to move towards a goal of a smoke-free military. "There may be things we can do to try to move towards that goal. But he has been very clear to me, up front, that one of the things he is not prepared to do is to restrict the use of tobacco products in combat zones," Morrell said. Anti-smoking activist Richard Daynard said Gates' decision was logical. But he predicted that, as smoking is banned on military bases outside combat zones, "then the problem over time will resolve itself, even in combat zones." The founder of the Tobacco Products Liability Project likened the situation to that which prevailed during the 1980s, when smoking aboard U.S. commercial airlines was banned. "There was an exception for the cockpit, at least on some airlines, on the theory that you probably don't want your pilot, if he's hooked on nicotine, to be cold-turkey while he's trying to navigate your plane." But, he said, the exception has been phased out. CNN's Adam Levine and Tom Watkins contributed to this story.

Question: What outlet is the secretary talking about?

Question: What would the ban be on?

Question: who recommends banning sales of snuff in the bases

Question: Who conducted the survey?

Answer: smoking.

Answer: smoking by troops in war zones

Answer: A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs

Answer: commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs

Summary:
No ban despite recommendation to do so in Pentagon-commissioned study .
Spokesman: Secretary does not want to take away outlet to relieve stress .
Study recommend banning tobacco sales on bases, prohibit smoking in uniform .