WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California who declared her opposition to same-sex marriage on the pageant stage, will star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage.

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has gotten support from many same-sex marriage opponents.

Prejean appeared Thursday at a news conference in Washington to unveil the ad, called "No Offense."

Prejean was roasted by same-sex marriage advocates after she stood up for what she called "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) when responding to a question from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton during the pageant. But she's also become a fresh-faced standard-bearer for same-sex marriage opponents, who have rallied to her defense.

"Marriage is good," Prejean said at the news conference. "There is something special about unions of husband and wife. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers."

"She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values," the National Organization for Marriage said in a press release. "But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values."

"This vision of marriage is not hateful," Prejean said. "It's not discriminatory. It's good."

Although she claimed that her view represents that of the majority of Americans, Prejean said she has no plan "on getting into politics anytime soon, that's for sure."

According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."

The Miss California USA TV ad is the group's second. Its first, called "A Gathering Storm," ran in several states and featured actors issuing ominous warnings about the threats posed by same-sex marriage.

Executive directors and producers of the Miss California USA pageant released a statement Wednesday lamenting that Prejean had taken on such a "polarizing" issue.

"We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the rights to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda," the group said.

CNN's Peter Hamby and Alan Duke contributed to this report.

Question: Where did Prejean publicly oppose same-sex marriage?

Question: What is the name of the pageant?

Question: What organization will she appear for?

Question: What was Prejean attacked for?

Question: What did Prejean publicly oppose?

Question: What is contestant opposed to?

Question: What will pageant contestant do?

Question: Who is opposed to same-sex marriage?

Answer: on the pageant stage,

Answer: Miss USA

Answer: Marriage.

Answer: having the courage to speak up

Answer: same-sex marriage

Answer: same-sex marriage

Answer: star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign

Answer: Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California

Summary:
Pageant contestant to appear in ad for National Organization for Marriage .
Carrie Prejean publicly opposed same-sex marriage during Miss USA pageant .
National Organization for Marriage: Prejean "attacked viciously" for speaking out .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly says Big Oil is not to blame for skyrocketing gas prices. Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly says world demand for crude oil has been growing, which is affecting gas prices. In an interview Tuesday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "The Situation Room," O'Reilly said high demand and a short supply of crude oil were key factors causing gas prices to spike. Despite reports of record profits among major oil companies, O'Reilly downplayed a recent poll in which Americans said corporate avarice played a role. O'Reilly also discussed President Bush's and GOP presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain's proposal to lift the ban on new offshore drilling as well as presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama's call for taxing companies' windfall profits. The following is an edited version of the show's transcript: Blitzer: You know you have -- you and ExxonMobil, the Big Oil companies --have a huge public relations problem. In all the recent polls, when the American public is asked, who do you blame for these huge gas prices at the pump, they -- more than any other single source -- they blame Big Oil. They blame you. What's going on?  Watch Blitzer grill O'Reilly » O'Reilly: Well, I don't think they blame us as much as you think. It looks to me like there's a lot of blame to go around. Blitzer: There's other blame, but more than any other single source, they blame Big Oil. O'Reilly: It depends on the poll you look at. Blitzer: The recent Gallup Poll. O'Reilly: Let me point out what we're trying to do about this because I think the issue here is one of supply. And prices are high today, but it's fundamentally a concern about oil supplies -- 75 percent of the price of gasoline is related to crude oil. We're very dependent on crude oil imports. The total world demand for crude oil has been growing steadily over the last decade. And that is affecting everybody's price. So it is a concern, but we need to work on the supply side, as well as the demand side, to bring change. Blitzer: Because you have had record profits, right? O'Reilly: We're investing those record profits. Blitzer: But billions and billions of dollars in profits, more than ever before. O'Reilly: Yes, but it's a big business. And on a return-on-sales business, we're right in there with the average of American business today. What we're doing is investing that money. For example, last year, we did make a lot of money, $18.7 billion. This year, our capital investment in new supplies is $22.9 billion, almost $23 billion. Blitzer: You know that Barack Obama says if he's president, he wants a windfall profits tax. He wants to take a chunk of your profits right now and give it back to the American people. John McCain opposes that, as you know. So I assume you would like to see John McCain elected president?  Watch McCain explain his stance » O'Reilly: Well, I would like to see no windfall profit tax. And I will tell you why. First of all, we are already heavily taxed as an industry. Our tax rates last year were at 45 percent, compared with in the 30s for the average of all industry. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, we're investing the money. If you take the money away, it will reduce investment, reduce supply and have exactly the opposite effect of helping the problem that you have referred to. And, thirdly, we have done it before. We have had windfall profit taxes. Congress has studied them about 30 years ago. And what happened under those circumstances is supplies dropped domestically, and we became even more dependent on imported oil. You don't want to do that today. Blitzer: Here's how Sen. Obama put it. Listen to this. Obama (in a video clip

Question:
What did O'Reilly say?
what company ceo is talking?
who is reporting
what caused the crisis
What did O'Reilly say is the problem?

Answer: Big Oil is not to blame for skyrocketing gas

Answer: Chevron Corp.

Answer: David O'Reilly

Answer: high demand and a short supply of crude oil

Answer: world demand for crude oil has been growing, which is affecting gas prices.

Summary:
Chevron CEO says his company is investing windfall profits in supplies .
David O'Reilly says he is opposed to windfall profits tax, favors offshore drilling .
"I want someone to be elected who will help resolve our energy crisis," O'Reilly says .
Citing report, O'Reilly says plenty of oil is in ground but access is the problem .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China has canceled or postponed several military exchanges with the U.S. in reaction to last week's announcement that the U.S. is selling weapons to Taiwan, a Defense Department spokesman said Monday.

Apache attack helicopters are part of the $6.4 billion weapons deal between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Officials announced last week an intention to sell $6.4 billion in arms to Taiwan, though the deal still needs to be approved by Congress.

Maj. Stewart Upton said the sale does not violate the Taiwan Relations Act, which allows the United States to provide Taiwan with items for self-defense

Taiwan split from the Chinese mainland in 1949 and the United States has vowed to support them if China initiates an unprovoked attack.

The arms deal comes at a time when the United States needs China in negotiations over Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs.

"The Chinese reaction is unfortunate and results in missed opportunities," Upton said. "We feel that the global security environment calls for U.S. and [Chinese] officials to maintain close relations to address common security challenges."

The "bilateral events" China called off or postponed involve "senior level visits and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief exchanges" scheduled to happen by the end of November, he said.

The Chinese ambassador was said to be on his way to the State Department Monday afternoon to protest the proposed weapons sale to Taiwan.

One U.S. official said the tension with China will not affect the role China is playing in negotiations with Iran or North Korea over its nuclear program.

The official declined to speak for attribution because of the sensitive diplomacy involved.

The arms deal package includes a variety of U.S.-made weapons systems, including Patriot III anti-missile system, Apache attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles and Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Question: Who is expected to protest the sale?

Question: What is China protesting?

Question: What international agreement would potentially be violated?

Question: What kind of arms were sold?

Question: What deal is China protesting?

Question: What is the Chinese ambassador expected to protest?

Answer: The Chinese ambassador

Answer: the proposed weapons sale to Taiwan.

Answer: the Taiwan Relations Act,

Answer: U.S.-made weapons systems, including Patriot III anti-missile system, Apache attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles and Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Answer: selling weapons to Taiwan,

Answer: proposed weapons sale

Summary:
China protesting U.S. deal to sell $6.4 billion in arms to Taiwan .
Deal comes when the U.S. needs China in negotiations over Iran and N. Korea .
Chinese ambassador expected to protest sale to the State Department .
U.S. defended deal, saying it does not violate international agreement .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China has refused nine U.S. Navy ships and one Air Force jet entry to Hong Kong in the past month, U.S. military officials said Friday.

China has refused the USS Reuben James, seen in a 1989 photo, a Christmas port call in Hong Kong.

Senior Navy officials said that Beijing denied permission for the USS Reuben James, a Navy frigate, to make a holiday port call for sailors at the end of December.

The rejection occurred last week, at the same time China refused to allow the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier battle group into Hong Kong for a Thanksgiving holiday port call.

A U.S. Air Force C-17 flight that had been scheduled for a routine resupply of the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong also was denied permission to enter, Navy officials said.

The Kitty Hawk battle group was eventually granted permission to enter, but by then the ships were well on their way to port in Japan.

Days earlier, China refused to give two U.S. Navy minesweepers safe harbor in Hong Kong during a storm on the high seas.

The United States has filed a formal protest with China over the decisions.

U.S. officials are baffled about the reason or reasons for the port call refusals. China recently has expressed concerns about U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and President Bush's October presentation of a Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.  Watch China put the blame on the U.S. »

There is speculation that the Chinese may have been conducting military exercises that they didn't want the U.S. Navy to see. Others think the refusals may have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Officials could not explain why the rejection of the Reuben James had not been disclosed before, even though reporters had repeatedly asked if there were any other pending port calls. One senior Navy official expressed dismay that the information had not been made public by the Pentagon.

White House deputy spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters the White House is "aware" of the latest refusals and referred reporters to the Pentagon. Stanzel said a "clarification" on the matter was being sought from Beijing.

White House and other Bush administration officials have sought to defuse tensions with China, saying the United States wants to move ahead on broader issues of military cooperation.

Navy officials, meanwhile, say Japan is tightening approvals for Chinese navy visits into its ports. Crew members from a Chinese ship making a port call in Japan may not be allowed to tour a Japanese Aegis warship.

The U.S.-designed Aegis weapons system enables coordinated operations against threats from aircraft and missiles, surface ships and submarines.

It is not clear if the Japanese decision was made at the request of the United States. E-mail to a friend

Question: How many U.S. minesweepers were denied safe harbor during a storm?

Question: Which country wouldn't let US Air Force jet land?

Question: What else did China do?

Question: What won't China allow?

Question: Which frigate was not allowed to enter Hong Kong?

Answer: two

Answer: China

Answer: refused nine U.S. Navy ships and one Air Force jet entry to Hong Kong

Answer: U.S. Navy ships and one Air Force jet entry to Hong Kong

Answer: USS Reuben James,

Summary:
NEW: China wouldn't let U.S. Air Force jet land to resupply Hong Kong consulate .
Frigate USS Reuben James not allowed to enter Hong Kong for port call .
China last week refused port call for USS Kitty Hawk battle group .
Two U.S. minesweepers denied safe harbor during storm .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China's military is developing longer-range ballistic and anti-ship missiles that are "shifting the balance of power in the region" and could help Beijing secure resources or settle territorial disputes, a report released by the Pentagon said Wednesday. U.S. and Chinese militaries need "resumption of dialogue,"  Adm. Timothy Keating told Congress. China also continues to build up short-range missiles and increase its "coercive capabilities" against Taiwan. The report suggests such moves constitute an effort to pressure Taiwan into settling the cross-strait dispute in favor of China, though tensions between the two countries have receded over the past year. The report, called the "Military Power of the People's Republic of China," is the Pentagon's annual briefing to Congress on the status of the communist country's military might. While China continues to proclaim that its military buildup is for defense purposes to protect its interests, the report says the country's lack of transparency is worrisome and could lead to an unintended conflict. "The limited transparency in China's military and security affairs poses risks to stability by creating uncertainty and increasing the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation," according to the report. "Much uncertainty surrounds China's future course, particularly regarding how its expanding military power might be used." The lack of transparency causes Washington "to speculate to some degree on what their intentions are," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters at a Wednesday briefing. According to Adm. Timothy Keating, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, some of that uncertainty is due to the cessation of talks between the Chinese and U.S. militaries. In March of 2008, the United States and China installed a hot line between the two countries' militaries. But there have been no military-to-military talks since November 2008, when Washington announced it was selling weapons to Taiwan. "We are looking for the resumption of that dialogue so we can engage in discussion with our colleagues in the People's Republic of China and their Army, Navy and Air Force so we can have a sense of their way ahead," Keating told the House Armed Services committee on Tuesday. "We don't have a clear idea of their broad strategic way ahead." The Pentagon report comes after a recent incident in which Chinese ships, including a Chinese navy vessel, confronted an unarmed U.S. Navy surveillance ship in the South China Sea in international waters. The confrontation prompted the United States to move a destroyer ship to the area to protect the surveillance vessel. While the report does not discuss the incident, it notes the importance China puts on controlling its waterways and the surrounding territories because "China's economic and political power is contingent upon access to and use of the sea, and that a strong navy is required to safeguard such access." The analysis also said that while much of China's capability is more for regional disputes, it did send two destroyers and one supply ship off the coast of Africa to protect Chinese vessels from pirate attacks. That move was a sign of Chinese intent to expand its militaries to protect expanding economic and political interests around the world, according to a China analyst. "The Chinese military is being told to develop capabilities to deal with Chinese national interests beyond the pure defense of Chinese territory," said David Finklestein, the Director of China Studies for CNA, a nonprofit research group that does analysis for the U.S. military and other clients. "China, with a global economy, now obviously has global political interests and clearly has expanding global security interests." Though the Pentagon report concludes that "China's ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited," it does have a growing space program, nuclear weapon system and cyber warfare capabilities, "the only aspects of China's armed forces that, today, have the potential to be truly global," the report explained. In citing China's cyber warfare, the report notes that U.S. government computers were the target of "intrusions that appear to have originated" from China, although they were not confirmed to be

Question: What is shifting the balance of power?

Question: The Pentagon report was about what country?

Question: What is partly to blame, according to U.S. admiral?

Question: The cessation talks were between who?

Question: What is shifting the balance of power in region?

Question: Who is accused of having a lack of transparency?

Question: What did the US admiral say is partly to blame?

Question: What area had a lack of transparency?

Question: What could Beijing's lack of transparency lead to?

Answer: developing longer-range ballistic and anti-ship missiles

Answer: China's

Answer: the cessation of talks between the Chinese and

Answer: Chinese and U.S. militaries.

Answer: developing longer-range ballistic and anti-ship missiles

Answer: China

Answer: the cessation of talks between the Chinese and U.S. militaries.

Answer: China's military and security affairs

Answer: unintended conflict.

Summary:
Pentagon report: China's missile development "shifting balance of power in region"
Beijing's lack of transparency could lead to unintended conflict, report says .
Cessation of talks between nations' militaries partly to blame, U.S. admiral says .
Report: Cyber warfare capability among the few areas of China's "truly global" reach .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- College football's perennial armchair-quarterback argument over the need for a clear-cut national champion came to Capitol Hill Friday.

College football teams play in the BCS for the national championship trophy.

The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing to dissect the Bowl Championship Series, asking whether the model needs to be tweaked, overhauled or done away with altogether.

Four witnesses testified at the morning hearing, including championship series coordinator John Swofford and Alamo Bowl President Derrick Fox; both of whom defended the current system, though Fox conceded that "no system is perfect and the Bowl Championship Series is not perfect."

Mountain West Conference Commissioner Craig Thompson and Boise State Athletic Director Gene Bleymaier testified that they would like to see the system revamped. Many critics say they want college football to have a playoff system to ensure that a champion is clearly defined.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, called the Bowl Championship Series format unfair and perhaps took it one step further. "You should either change your name to BES for Bowl Exhibition System or just drop the C and call it the BS system, because it is not about determining the championship on the field."

Both sides were cordial but opinionated. Fox said he would prefer Washington not get involved. "Those who don't like the current system will say that's the way of the world, but we don't believe that government should have any role in promoting a demise of the bowl games."

Currently, 11 college conferences and three independents compete in the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision -- formerly Division I-A. Six of those 11 conferences are guaranteed spots in the four Bowl Championship Series games. Schools from conferences that critics say are unfairly deemed as low profile are then left to fight their way into those prestige games. They share in significantly less of the series money and have less of an opportunity to challenge for the national title.

President Obama is one of the proponents of a college football playoff. In an interview with ESPN in November, Obama said he's had just about enough of the Bowl Championship Series.

"I'm fed up with these computer rankings and this, that and the other. Get eight teams -- the top eight teams right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a national champion," Obama said.

Before heading out early to catch a flight, Barton made it clear that he expects to see college football change its ways or risk having lawmakers introduce legislation to impose change for them.

"I think there is better than a 50 percent chance that if we don't see some action in the next two months on a voluntary switch to a playoff system that you will see this bill move," he said.

Question: Who hears testimony from officials, coaches on both sides?

Question: What does the Bowl Series decide?

Question: What is the perennial argurment?

Question: What would be a better way to decide?

Question: How long would a playoff system take?

Question: What did the house committee hear?

Answer: Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Answer: the national championship trophy.

Answer: the need for a clear-cut

Answer: a playoff system

Answer: two months

Answer: dissect the Bowl Championship Series,

Summary:
Bowl Championship Series decides college football's national champ .
Perennial argument is that a playoff system would be a better way to decide .
House committee hears testimony from officials, coaches on both sides .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Computer hackers have embedded software in the United States' electricity grid and other infrastructure that could potentially disrupt service or damage equipment, two former federal officials told CNN.

The ex-officials say code also has been found in computer systems of oil and gas distributors.

The code in the power grid was discovered in 2006 or 2007, according to one of the officials, who called it "the 21st century version of Cold War spying."

Department of Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano would not confirm such a breach, but said Wednesday that there has been no known damage caused by one.

"There have been, to my knowledge, no disruptions of power on any grid caused by a deliberate cyberattack on our infrastructure -- on the grid," Napolitano said. "Nonetheless, we remain in constant protection, prevention, education, resiliency mode and we work with the utility sector particularly on that."  Watch security officials explain threat »

The U.S. power grid isn't the only system at risk. The former officials said malicious code has been found in the computer systems of oil and gas distributors, telecommunications companies and financial services industries.

Napolitano said the vulnerability of the nation's power grid to cyberattacks "has been something that the Department of Homeland Security and the energy sector have known about for years," and that the department has programs in place to fight such attacks.

Security experts say such computer hacking could be the work of a foreign government -- possibly Russia or China -- seeking to compromise U.S. security in the event of a future military conflict.

Former CIA operative Robert Baer said he is not aware of a specific breach like the one the former officials describe. But he said people in the intelligence community assume that such attacks from countries like China go on all the time.

"Their foreign intelligence service has been probing our computers, our defense computers, our defense contractors, our power grids, our telephone system. ... I just came from a speech at the national defense university and they were hit by the Chinese trying to get into their systems," Baer said.

"They are testing and have gotten in portals. It's a serious threat."

Baer said if the software was embedded by a foreign government, he doubts it would be used to launch a surprise attack. Instead, he said, that government likely would keep the bugs in place in case of a future conflict with the United States.

"It's deterrence in the event of war," he said. "They will have another weapon at their disposal, which will be to turn off our power."

When the coding is found, it can be destroyed. But experts said that's easier said than done.

"If you have somebody who knows what they're doing writing that code and embedding it in a clever way, you can look right at it and not recognize it," said Scott Borg, director and chief economist at the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, an independent research institute.

And even when it's found, Borg said, confirming the source of a cyberattack can be next to impossible.

"Anonymity is a fact of life in the cyberworld," he said. "It's very easy to run an attack through somebody else's computer. It's very easy to embed code in Russian or Chinese when you're not Russian or Chinese.

"So it's very difficult to be confident on where anything like this comes from."

Critics of the utilities industry have accused it of not doing enough in the past to defend against cyberassaults. But Ed Legge, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents shareholder-owned electric companies, said the industry takes the threat seriously and has made progress in closing some of the loopholes that would allow such attacks.

President Obama has started a 60-day review of all the nation's efforts at cybersecurity that is expected to be completed by April 17, Napolitano said.

While utility grids are owned by industries, not the government, Napolitano said her department will continue working with power companies and

Question:
Is the code difficult to detect?
Has damage been done?
Was any damage caused?
What is being targeted?
What was targeted in the attacks?
What doesn't Homeland security confirm?

Answer: you can look right at it and not recognize it,"

Answer: no known

Answer: no known

Answer: electricity grid

Answer: infrastructure

Answer: a breach,

Summary:
2 ex-federal officials say U.S. electrical grid, other infrastructure targeted .
Homeland Security doesn't confirm a breach, says no damage caused by one .
Expert says this kind of code could be difficult to detect .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress enacted a $300 billion farm bill Thursday over President Bush's objections, but questions remain about whether a clerical error will keep the bill from going into effect. Congress voted to override President Bush's veto of a $300 billion farm bill. The Senate voted 82-13 to override the president's veto of the bill Thursday, a day after the House voted 316-108 to override the veto. Both override votes exceeded the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution. A portion of the bill, however, remains in legal limbo. Before the House override vote Wednesday night, lawmakers discovered that the version sent to the White House last week was missing a part. The discovery raises questions about whether that section of the bill, which dealt with authorized trade and food aid, would become law. The discovery of the missing section, "Title III," prompted concerns from House Republicans that the override vote was improper. Democrats said the matter stemmed from a clerical error. But Republicans pounced on the "fiasco," which they said would require a temporary extension of the current farm bill. "What's happened here raises serious constitutional questions -- very serious," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "I don't see how we can proceed with the override as it occurred." However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the override votes in both chambers of Congress would allow the sections of the bill that were sent to the president to become law. "So, the farm bill minus Title III would be enacted" after the override votes, Pelosi said. "But I'm optimistic that we will be able to get Title III as well, either on its own or by sending the full bill again." "Obviously, we want the complete bill. But ... we have obviously consulted with those who are expert on the Constitution and congressional action and presidential signatures, vetoes and overrides." In order to start the process of Title III to become law, the House passed the entire farm bill again Thursday by a vote of 306-110. It is unclear what the Senate will do. It could pass the entire bill again, as the House did, or it could pass the portion not sent to the president as a free-standing bill. Two-thirds of the $300 billion in spending for the farm bill would go for nutrition programs such as food stamps. Another $40 billion would go toward farm subsidies, and $30 billion is allocated for payments to farms to keep land idle and other environmental programs. After vetoing the farm bill, Bush said it "continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm-bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase." The president said it would hurt efforts to improve American farmers' access to overseas markets. Congress has passed one bill over Bush's objections: a $23 billion water-project legislation that the president vetoed in 2007. CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Question: Who objected most of the farm bill?

Question: What did Pelosi say about the bill?

Question: What was left out in the version sent to Bush?

Question: Who objected to the farm bill?

Question: What was left out of bill sent to Bush?

Question: What did Congress enact?

Question: What bill did Congress enact?

Question: Who was objecting?

Question: Why did Bush veto the bill?

Answer: President Bush's

Answer: "But I'm optimistic that we will be able to get Title III as well,

Answer: that section of the bill, which dealt with authorized trade and food aid,

Answer: President Bush's objections,

Answer: which dealt with authorized trade and food aid,

Answer: a $300 billion farm bill

Answer: $300 billion farm

Answer: President Bush's

Answer: it "continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm-bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase."

Summary:
NEW: Congress enacts most of farm bill over Bush's objections .
NEW: Portions of bill sent to the president are now law, Pelosi says .
Section of farm bill left out in version sent to President Bush .
Bush vetoed bill because he says it's too generous to wealthy farmers .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress passed a $300 billion farm bill over President Bush's veto for a second time Wednesday, a step made necessary by a clerical error when the original bill passed. Congress overrode President Bush's second veto of a $300 billion farm bill. The Senate voted 80-14 to approve the measure over Bush's objections, following a 317-109 vote in the House of Representatives. Both votes were well above the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, which Bush delivered Wednesday morning. Congress overrode an earlier veto of the farm bill last month, even though lawmakers had discovered that 34 pages were missing in the version originally sent to the White House. In spiking the latest version, Bush said he objected to its continued subsidies for the wealthy and its use of budget gimmicks to hide a $20 billion increase in spending. But Sen. Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the measure actually saves the government $110 million. "This bill does not add to the deficit or debt, because this bill is paid for," he said. "That is not my claim. That is the finding of the Congressional Budget Office." The discovery of the missing section, Title III, prompted concerns from House Republicans that the override vote was improper. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the sections of the bill that were originally sent to the president had become law after Congress voted to override Bush's first veto. But to put Title III into effect, Congress re-passed the entire legislation, including the missing pages, and resent it to Bush. The House voted 306-110 at the end of May. The Senate voted 77-15 for the bill at the beginning of June. Two-thirds of the $300 billion in spending for the farm bill will go for nutrition programs such as food stamps. Another $40 billion will go toward farm subsidies, and $30 billion is allocated for payments to farms to keep land idle and other environmental programs. After vetoing the latest version of the farm bill, Bush scolded Congress on Wednesday for not "modifying certain objectionable, onerous and fiscally imprudent provisions. ... I am returning this bill for the same reasons as stated in my veto message." When he vetoed the first version of the farm bill, Bush said it "continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase." The president said it would hurt efforts to improve American farmers' access to overseas markets. Congress has passed one other bill over Bush's objections: legislation for a $23 billion water project that the president vetoed in 2007. CNN Capitol Hill producer Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Question: Who vetoed the farm bill?

Question: What was wrong with the version sent to the White House?

Question: What did Bush veto?

Question: What was the Senate vote result?

Question: What was the outcome of the Senate vote?

Question: What is Bush's objection?

Answer: Bush

Answer: 34 pages were missing

Answer: $300 billion farm bill.

Answer: 80-14

Answer: 80-14 to approve the measure

Answer: its continued subsidies for the wealthy and its use of budget gimmicks to hide a $20 billion increase in spending.

Summary:
NEW: Senate votes 80-14 to approve measure over Bush's objections .
President Bush vetoed $300 billion farm bill for second time .
Bush says bill is too generous to wealthy farmers .
Version originally sent to White House had 34 pages missing .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress voted to halt planned cuts in Medicare payments to doctors Tuesday, overriding President Bush's veto in a battle that pitted health insurers against physicians. President Bush says he objects to the bill because it takes choices "away from seniors to pay physicians." The new law stops a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, part of a scheduled cost-saving formula that went into effect July 1. The money for the doctors will be taken from the government-subsidized Medicare Advantage program, which the Bush administration strongly supports. Bush spiked the bill Tuesday, telling lawmakers they would be "taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians." "I urge the Congress to send me a bill that reduces the growth in Medicare spending, increases competition and efficiency, implements principles of value-driven health care and appropriately offsets increases in physician spending," he said in his veto message. The Senate voted 70-26 to enact the law over Bush's objections, the third time in his presidency that Congress has overridden his veto. The margin in the House of Representatives was a lopsided 383-41, well beyond the two-thirds majority needed. The American Medical Association lobbied heavily for the bill, warning that its members could be forced to curtail seeing Medicare patients if the cuts went into effect. But insurers, which receive government subsidies to offer Medicare Advantage plans, warned that 2 million seniors could lose health benefits if it passed. A total of 21 Senate Republicans joined 47 Democrats and two independents in the override vote. Supporters broke a GOP-led filibuster of the bill last week, aided by the dramatic return of Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Kennedy's vote came in his first appearance on the Senate floor since surgery to remove a brain tumor in early June. Though he did not vote Tuesday, Kennedy praised his colleagues for overriding the "misguided" veto. "It's a great vote, and a great day for America's seniors," he said in a written statement. Those Republicans who opposed the bill argued that it would roll back many of the changes made to Medicare in 2003, when Congress created privately run, government-subsidized prescription drug coverage and expanded the role of private insurers in other coverage. "These are not pro-patient policies," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona. "Rather, the bill reduces access, benefits and choices for Medicare beneficiaries." But critics of the 2003 reforms say Medicare Advantage subsidies end up costing more than the government would pay to cover the same people through regular Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will reduce federal spending by $12.5 billion by 2013, largely by reducing Medicare Advantage enrollment. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said the bill also made "vital improvements" by supporting rural health care and lowering fees for mental health care. "Today, we can stand up for Medicare," she said. "We did it last week, when we came together and voted for this measure by a veto-proof margin, and I believe we can do it today by overriding that veto." Congress had passed only two bills over Bush's objections: a $23 billion water-project legislation that the president vetoed in 2007 and a $300 billion farm bill he spiked in May. The Medicare system pays for the health care of roughly 40 million elderly Americans. Rising health care costs have made Medicare a growing part of the federal budget, and the stress on the system is increasing as more baby boomers reach retirement age. While the debate was raging over the bill, the AMA said the cuts could lead to a "meltdown" of the government's health care system for the elderly. A recent survey by the group found that 60 percent of physicians will be forced to limit the number of new Medicare patients they can take on if the cuts go into effect. "We stand at the brink of a Medicare meltdown. ... For doctors, this is not

Question:
Who rejected the law
What would the bill stop?
What was the bill?
what did senate do
what did house do
what is medicare

Answer: 21 Senate Republicans joined 47 Democrats and two independents

Answer: a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors,

Answer: planned cuts in Medicare payments to doctors

Answer: to enact the law over Bush's objections,

Answer: voted to halt planned cuts in Medicare payments to doctors

Answer: the federal health insurance program for seniors.

Summary:
NEW: House votes 383 to 41 to override President Bush's veto .
NEW: Senate votes 70-26 to enact the law over Bush's objections .
Medicare payment bill sent to Bush after Senate filibuster battle .
Bill would stop 10.6 percent cut in what Medicare pays doctors .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Republicans offered what they call a "centrist, practical" plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system Tuesday, one they say would be the cheapest of any option proposed so far.

House Republicans say their health care plan is a better package than the Senate version.

Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk said the package put together by moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives would be far cheaper than a plan being drawn up in the Senate. A preliminary review of that plan by the Congressional Budget Office found it would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years to extend health insurance to 16 million people who otherwise would not be covered -- about a third of the roughly 45 million now uninsured.

"I think this plan that we put forward is more centrist, more bipartisan and would be at significantly lower cost," Kirk said. He said no cost estimate had been prepared for the measures he put forth Tuesday, but asserted its elements would require less money from taxpayers than other proposals.

The package announced by the GOP "Tuesday Group" includes some perennial Republican favorites such as regulatory relief, an individual tax break for purchasing health insurance and limits on malpractice lawsuits. It also would encourage insurers to pool their coverage to a greater extent than currently allowed, which Kirk and other supporters say has worked well in California.

But it also emphasizes preventive care, computerizing patient records and reducing "defensive medicine" by promoting treatments proven effective -- all principles the White House has endorsed, as well.

The centerpiece of the plan, Kirk said, is a "Medical Rights Act" that would keep government out of "decisions made by you and your doctor." He said the plans were drawn up during four months of talks with dozens of groups, including patient advocates, doctors, nurses, employers and "other interested groups."

The proposal came as the conservative GOP leadership in the House stepped up attacks on the proposal being drafted by Senate Democrats. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Monday's budget office report showed "millions of Americans" would lose their current insurance.

"President Obama says the problem with our health care is that we spend too much, and if you look at all the proposals, clearly they are going to spend trillions of dollars of additional money that we don't have -- that we're going to have to borrow -- in order to finance their scheme," Boehner told reporters.

The report projected that the number of people covered by employer-based health care plans would fall by about 15 million by 2017. In the same year, about 39 million people would be covered by policies purchased through a health insurance "exchange" of the type Obama has proposed.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday that a bill is still being drafted and "has many twists and turns to go."

"One incomplete older proposal I don't think is indicative of where we are now," he said.

Question: What does Kirk say that the plan does?

Question: who is robert gibbs

Question: Preliminary review of Senate plan finds it would cost how much?

Question: what mark says

Question: What would be the cost over a 10 year period?

Question: Plan keeps government out of what, according to Kirk?

Question: who is mark kirk

Question: Rep. Mark Kirk says GOP proposal would be what?

Answer: overhaul the U.S. health care system

Answer: White House spokesman

Answer: $1 trillion

Answer: package put together by moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives would be far cheaper than a plan being drawn up in the Senate.

Answer: $1 trillion

Answer: "decisions made by you and your doctor."

Answer: Illinois Rep.

Answer: far cheaper than a plan being drawn up in the Senate.

Summary:
Rep. Mark Kirk says GOP proposal would be far cheaper than Senate plan .
Plan keeps government out of "decisions made by you and your doctor," Kirk said .
Preliminary review of Senate plan finds it would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years .
Robert Gibbs says bill still being drafted; "has many twists and turns to go"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Creating and saving jobs while boosting investment in the future are among the top goals of the Obama administration's $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

President Obama chats with students at a Silver Spring, Maryland, elementary school this week.

And according to a preliminary report on stimulus funding for schools by the Department of Education and the Domestic Policy Council, the stimulus plan has created jobs.

State governments have created and saved at least 250,000 education jobs -- and restored nearly all their projected education budget shortfalls for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 -- according to preliminary findings released Monday by the White House.

But some states that used the funds to fill existing budget gaps could face a crisis when the money runs out after 2010. And the Department of Education has chastised certain states for their stimulus funding programs and warned them that they risk their chances at getting other DOE grants down the road.

The stimulus funds appropriated $48.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to help keep and create jobs and advance education reforms over a period of two years, the report said. The program dedicates $39.8 billion for public elementary, secondary and higher education and other services. Another $8.8 billion will go for other activities such as public safety or government services.

"To date, $35.5 billion of the SFSF allotment has been obligated and $13.2 [billion] is forthcoming," the report added.

In a recent memo, the Department of Education's inspector general's office warned Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania about not following the rules.

At issue is the government's "maintenance of effort" provision, which makes states receiving stimulus funds promise to maintain funding at fiscal year 2006 levels.

The provision also requires states to pledge to use these funds to advance certain education reforms: increasing teacher effectiveness, implementing statewide data systems, and providing  support for struggling schools.

The September 30 memo pointed out states are using K-12 stimulus funds to fill gaps in their education budgets due to decreasing revenues and resources.

Pennsylvania's actions led to a terse letter on June 18 from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Gov. Ed Rendell.

The letter said: "If a State has disproportionately reduced its education budget and/or if a State has done nothing more than backfill budget holes with these dollars when the State had other resources available to it, such as a rainy-day fund, the State's competitive position to receive ... competitive grants may be negatively impacted."

Those states employing the practice, some argue, will face dire straits in fiscal year 2011 when the stimulus funding runs out.

"States and districts were repeatedly warned about funding [problems]," said Chad Aldeman, a policy analyst with the nonpartisan think tank Education Sector.

But Aldeman notes that there may have been a lack of communication between states and the federal government over how to spend the money.

"They [states] were told to focus on one-time investments as much as possible," he said. "At the same time, the Department of Education sold this as a job and reform package. ... They say on one hand, preserve and create jobs. On the other hand, they talk about education reform."

The Obama administration argues the early results from Monday's report show the money already is having an effect.

"This is one more indication of how the Recovery Act is helping soften the blow of tough times, by keeping educators on the job and teachers in the classroom," Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement.

But there has been criticism over the way the government is handling and tracking the Recovery Act.

"If these issues and the stimulus money being made available ... are not handled carefully, conflict and even paralysis are likely to ensue," said Pedro A. Noguera, a professor at New York University and director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education, in a recent CNN.com commentary. "The president may even inadvertently alienate an important core constituency that he will surely need in the years ahead -- public school teachers."

Aldeman points out that some of the

Question: What number of jobs were saved?

Question: What is the act called?

Question: What have they been doing?

Question: How many education jobs were saved?

Question: What did a report on the stimulus find?

Question: What caused some states to be in trouble?

Answer: 250,000

Answer: economic stimulus plan.

Answer: Creating and saving jobs while boosting investment in the future

Answer: 250,000

Answer: plan has created jobs.

Answer: used the funds to fill existing budget gaps could face a crisis when the money runs out

Summary:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed in February .
Preliminary report finds stimulus plan saved 250,000 education jobs .
States have restored nearly all education budget shortfalls for 2009-10, report says .
Some states in trouble with feds for using money to fill gaps, not on required goals .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked Pentagon staff to draw up plans for shutting the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a Pentagon spokesman said. A detainee is seen through a fence in July at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The camp holds about 250 suspected terrorists, down from a peak of roughly 750 men from 40 countries. It houses several top al Qaeda figures, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- the confessed architect of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Gates "has asked his team for a proposal on how to shut it down, what would be required specifically to close it and move the detainees from that facility, while at the same time, of course, ensuring that we protect the American people [from] some very dangerous characters," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Thursday. Morrell described it as a contingency plan in case the new administration wants to take it up early in the new year. President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to close the camp at Guantanamo but hasn't set a specific timetable. Gates will continue as defense secretary when Obama takes office. "I would like to see it closed," Gates told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview. "And I think it will be a high priority for the new administration." Officials close to the Obama team said in November that the incoming administration is pondering options, including trying some of the Guantanamo Bay inmates in federal courts, setting up a special national security court to deal with cases involving the most sensitive intelligence information, and releasing some inmates. In an October 31 interview with CNN, Obama said only that he would close the facility "as quickly as we can do prudently." "I am not going to give a time certain because I think what we have to do is evaluate all those who are still being held in Gitmo," he said. "We have to put in place appropriate plans to make sure they are tried, convicted and punished to the full extent of the law, and that's going to require, I think, a review of the existing cases, which I have not had the opportunity to do." In May, Gates told a Senate committee that efforts to shut down the facility were "stuck" over what to do with the inmates.

Question: What has he pledged to do?

Question: What was drawn up?

Question: What is Gates anticipating?

Question: What is Obama expected to do?

Question: What did Robert Gates ask Pentagon staff to do?

Question: What does the camp hold?

Question: How many inmates are held in camp?

Question: What could be shut down?

Answer: close the camp at Guantanamo

Answer: plans for shutting

Answer: shutting

Answer: close the camp at Guantanamo

Answer: draw up plans for shutting

Answer: about 250 suspected terrorists,

Answer: 250

Answer: U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

Summary:
Camp holds about 250 inmates, down from peak of about 750 .
Defense Secretary Robert Gates asks Pentagon staff to draw up closure plans .
Gates anticipates possible move by Barack Obama to close camp .
President-elect has pledged to shut down Guantanamo .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to approve sending thousands of additional forces to Afghanistan to deal with the growing threat from roadside bombs, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Friday. Marines detonate a roadside bomb. Injuries from the bombs have increased 700 percent in two years. Over the past two weeks, Gates has concluded that there are not enough forces or equipment in Afghanistan to protect U.S. troops from the threat of roadside bombs, Morrell said. The secretary, he said, wants to send these forces "as soon as possible." Morrell said the deployment would be separate from any that might be requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The plan could send nearly 3,000 troops, another U.S. military official familiar with the proposal said. He said Pentagon planners have already identified some of the units that would be sent. This official asked not to be identified because no final decision has been announced. Plans have been in place to set the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan at 68,000 since earlier this year, when President Obama approved an additional 21,000 troops. The decision comes at a sensitive time politically. In the last few days, two key Democrats have questioned sending additional troops. "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told reporters Thursday. On Friday, Sen. Carl Levin,  the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has recently returned from Afghanistan, said the emphasis should be on training and increasing the size of the Afghanistan army before considering more U.S. forces. "Our primary goal should be to strengthen the Afghan army and the police, to provide the necessary training and equipment and also to see if we can't reintegrate some of the lower-level Taliban people, who are the young people who aren't the religious zealots but are being taken advantage of by the leaders," Levin, D-Michigan, told MSNBC. Gates himself has been a vocal opponent of expanding the U.S. presence for fear that the forces would be seen as occupiers by the Afghan population. But last week, he softened that position, saying McChrystal had made a persuasive argument that the concern should not be on the size of the forces but on their conduct. Morrell said the proposal may not raise total U.S. troop strength above 68,000, because some of the units already scheduled to go could be sent not fully staffed or others already there could be sent home. Still, "the secretary has already determined this is a requirement that needs to be fulfilled," Morrell said. "The forces there now require more IED protection." The troops would specialize in route clearance, explosive ordnance disposal, medical treatment and intelligence-gathering, Morrell said. "We owe this to the troops already committed to the fight," he said. Since 2007, the number of roadside bombs in Afghanistan has jumped 350 percent, according to the Defense Department. Though many are found before they detonate, the number of troops killed has increased by more than 400 percent and the number wounded is up more 700 percent over the last two years. One U.S. military source told CNN that the Taliban's capacity to manufacture bombs, train attackers and target U.S. troops has grown over the past year. On September 8 near Kandahar, troops seized five tons of ammonium nitrate, more than twice the amount used in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in 1995. On August 27, C-4 plastic explosives were found in Herat by Afghan troops. Afghanistan's rugged terrain and dirt roads make it easy to quickly hide roadside bombs. "You have disturbed earth all the time," said Gen. Montgomery Meigs, former head of the Department of Defense's IED Task Force. "Especially close to villages and close to intersections -- that just makes the seeing and finding, even by soldiers' eyes, a lot more complicated." The Taliban have proven adept at adjusting their strategy as circumstances change. Seeing that troops were

Question: What have Congressional Democrats said about troop increases?

Question: Who is in support of the plan?

Question: Who found not enough forces in Afghanistan?

Question: Who is the defense secretary?

Question: According to sources, how many troops could the plan send?

Question: How many troops will be sent?

Question: What is the increasing in roadside bomb fatalities?

Answer: "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more

Answer: Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Answer: Gates

Answer: Robert Gates

Answer: 3,000

Answer: 3,000

Answer: 700 percent in two years.

Summary:
Defense secretary finds not enough forces in Afghanistan to protect U.S. troops .
Plan could send nearly 3,000 troops, source says .
Congressional Democrats have spoken against troop increases .
Troops killed by roadside bombs up more than 400 percent in 2 years .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday criticized President Bush's plan to withdraw roughly 30,000 troops from Iraq by next summer, with Sen. Hillary Clinton labeling it "too little, too late."

Sen. Hillary Clinton listens as Gen. David Petraeus testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In an open letter to Bush, Clinton said the troop withdrawal "is simply too little, too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war."

Bush on Thursday is expected to endorse the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus that the troop levels in Iraq be lowered to 130,000 by July, down from the "surge" level of 160,000.

"As commander in chief, you have the authority and ability to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more troops home so much faster," the New York Democrat said. "I strongly urge you to choose this course of action."

In an interview Wednesday with CNN, one of Clinton's chief rivals for the 2008 nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said the president is returning to an earlier, failed policy.

"We now are still in the same position as we essentially were in June 2006," he said. "We are in the same levels of violence; we are at the same levels of dysfunctional when it comes to the government in Iraq, and the American people at some point have a right to ask from their leadership in Washington and from the president: When is enough enough?" Watch '08 Dems weigh in on war in Iraq »

Obama presented a new plan for Iraq on Wednesday afternoon in Clinton, Iowa. It calls for an immediate drawdown of combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year, according to excerpts released before his speech. A brigade comprises between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers. Obama recommended a new constitutional convention for Iraq, a new regional diplomatic effort and steps to confront the country's humanitarian crisis.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech.

Presidential candidate John Edwards, who has been pressing congressional Democrats to take a more confrontational stance against President Bush, called for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops.

In a prepared statement, Edwards, a Democrat from North Carolina, said Obama, Clinton and Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who recently called for a withdrawal to begin by Christmas, have "a moral responsibility to use every tool available to them, including a filibuster, to force the president to change course."

Edwards also called Obama's plan for troop withdrawal a copy of the president's plan

"Sen. Obama would withdraw only one to two combat brigades a month between now and the end of next year," said Edwards, "which for the next several months could essentially mimic the president's own plans to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer."

In a statement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, said Wednesday that it was useless to debate tactics when "the underlying policy is a complete failure."

"I call on my colleagues to do what needs to be done to end our involvement in this civil war and help restore our national security by clearly and directly declaring that they will not support any Iraq measure without a firm, enforceable deadline tied to funding for the completion of redeployment of troops from Iraq," Dodd said.

Democrats lack the votes in Congress to force the president to bring the troops home and are seeking a compromise position.

Congressional Democratic leaders are meeting with Republican lawmakers, who want a change in war policy but are unwilling to cut funding or set a timeline for withdrawal.

Privately, congressional Democrats concede that the next president probably will inherit at least a deployment

Question: what did hilary clinton say?

Question: What did John Edwards  call for?

Question: What does clinton say about the withdrawal of troops?

Question: what did john edwars immediate withdrawal?

Question: What does Barack Obama have to say about this?

Question: What did John Edwards say?

Question: John Edwards is withdrawing how many troops?

Question: What did Hillary Clinton say about withdrawal?

Question: Who wants immediate withdrawal of 40,000 plus troops?

Question: Who is calling for troop withdrawal?

Question: What did John Edwards call for?

Question: What has edwards called for?

Question: What did Barack Obama call for?

Question: Who calls for immediate withdrawal of troops?

Question: What does Barack Obama call for?

Question: Does Hilary Clinton think enough is being done?

Question: What is John Edwards job?

Question: what did hillary clinton says?

Question: What did senator hillary Clinton say?

Question: Edwards calls for immediate withdrawal of how many troops?

Question: What did Clinton say?

Question: When will Obama begin troop withdrawal?

Question: what call made barack obama?

Answer: troop withdrawal "is simply too little, too late, and unacceptable

Answer: an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops.

Answer: "is simply too little, too late, and unacceptable to this Congress,

Answer: of 40,000 to 50,000 troops.

Answer: an earlier, failed policy.

Answer: "Sen. Obama would withdraw only one to two combat brigades a month between now and the end of next year,"

Answer: 40,000 to 50,000

Answer: "is simply too little, too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war."

Answer: John Edwards,

Answer: Obama

Answer: immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops.

Answer: immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops.

Answer: an immediate drawdown of combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month,

Answer: John Edwards,

Answer: immediate drawdown of combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year,

Answer: "too little, too late."

Answer: Presidential candidate

Answer: "too little, too late."

Answer: troop withdrawal "is simply too little, too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war."

Answer: 40,000 to 50,000

Answer: "too little, too late."

Answer: immediately

Answer: an immediate drawdown of combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month,

Summary:
NEW: John Edwards calls for immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops .
Sen. Hillary Clinton says withdrawal of 30,000 troops by July "too little, too late"
Sen. Barack Obama calls for an immediate start to troop withdrawals .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama is in excellent health, according to a statement from his doctor, released by the campaign. Besides being an "intermittent smoker," Sen. Barack Obama is in excellent health, his doctor says. Obama, 46, last saw Dr. David Scheiner in January 2007, shortly before he declared he was running for president. Scheiner, who has been Obama's primary doctor since 1987, observed that the Illinois senator's diet, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol were all healthy. "In short, his examination showed him to be in excellent health," Scheiner said. Obama "exercised regularly, often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. ... On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute," Scheiner wrote. The Illinois senator has been an "intermittent" cigarette smoker who has "quit on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success." Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, released his health records last week. McCain's doctors also described him as being in "excellent health," despite a history of skin cancer, and said there appears to be no physical reason why the 71-year-old candidate could not carry out the duties of the office. Obama released a one-page statement from his primary care physician. He did not release any medical records or make his doctors available to the media. By contrast, McCain made more than 1,000 pages of medical documents available to journalists, including CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Four of McCain's doctors held a conference call with reporters after the records were made available. McCain has had four malignant melanomas removed. Three of them -- on his left shoulder, left arm and left nasal wall -- were limited to the top skin layer and were not invasive. They were removed in 1993, 2000 and 2002. But a fourth melanoma proved to be invasive and was removed from his left lower temple in 2000, said Dr. John D. Eckstein, an internist who has been overseeing McCain's treatment for 16 years at the Mayo Clinic's campus in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Question: What product is Obama using to quit smoking?

Question: What does the doctor say is healthy?

Question: Who is a smoker?

Question: Who is the GOP presumptive nominee?

Question: Who released his records last week?

Question: When were the records released?

Question: Which gum is Obama using?

Question: Who does the doctor say is an intermittent smoker?

Answer: Nicorette gum

Answer: Sen. Barack Obama

Answer: Obama

Answer: Sen. John McCain,

Answer: Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president,

Answer: last week.

Answer: Nicorette

Answer: Barack Obama

Summary:
Senator's weight, blood pressure and cholesterol are all healthy, doctor says .
Obama is an "intermittent smoker," doctor says .
Obama has quit smoking several times, is currently using Nicorette gum .
GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain released records last week .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized Friday for a department assessment that suggested returning combat veterans could be recruited by right-wing extremist groups.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says she offered her "sincere apologies for any offense."

She met with American Legion National Commander David Rehbein at Homeland Security headquarters.

"The secretary started the meeting with an apology to me personally, to the American Legion and to the entire veterans community," Rehbein told reporters after the meeting.

In a statement issued by the department, Napolitano said, "We connected meaningfully about the important issues that have emerged over recent days, and I offered him my sincere apologies for any offense to our veterans caused by this report. ... I pledge that the department has fixed the internal process that allowed this document to be released before it was ready."

The report was an unclassified assessment sent to law enforcement agencies. It was titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

The mention of combat veterans surfaced on a conservative radio program earlier this month, and it drew the scorn of commentators and conservative members of Congress. Rep. John Carter, R -Texas, called on Napolitano to resign.

Rehbein said Friday it is time to move forward.

"In the mind of the American Legion, I think her apology was sufficient," he said. "The way the Vietnam veterans were treated once they came home, that's what drives the sensitivity to this, because those things start small and then grow from there, and we need to make sure anytime something like that happens we need to step on that and make sure it goes away very quickly."

Question: What did the report say?

Question: Who did the apologising?

Question: Who apologizes?

Question: Who apologies?

Question: Which document was released too early?

Question: Who said document was released?

Question: Who could be recruited by right-wing extremists?

Question: Wh says veterans could be recruited?

Answer: returning combat veterans could be recruited by right-wing extremist groups.

Answer: Janet Napolitano

Answer: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

Answer: Janet Napolitano

Answer: "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

Answer: Janet Napolitano

Answer: returning combat veterans

Answer: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

Summary:
Homeland Security report says veterans could be recruited by right-wing extremists .
Homeland Security chief apologizes for "any offense caused by this report'
Napolitano says document was released before it was ready .
American Legion commander accepts apology, says it's time to move on .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite a bleak economic environment featuring wide-ranging layoffs and rising unemployment, the nation's premier law enforcement agency is touting "one of the largest hiring blitzes in our 100-year history." The FBI is about to embark on its biggest hiring spree since immediately after the September 11, 2001. The FBI posted openings for 850 special agents and more than 2,100 professional support personnel. Officials say it's the largest FBI job posting since immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The FBI's unexpectedly large number of job openings results more from attrition and a wave of retirements than from growing government appropriations, Bureau officials told CNN. The FBI routinely advertises openings for individuals with critical skills in computer science and language fluency. But John Raucci, assistant director of the FBI's Human Resources Division, says current needs are much more wide-ranging. "We're also looking for professionals in a wide variety of fields who have a deep desire to help protect our nation from terrorists, spies and others who wish us harm," Raucci said. The lengthy list of openings includes positions in finance and accounting, security, intelligence analysis, training and education, nursing and counseling, physical surveillance, electrical engineering, physical and social sciences, and auto mechanics. Procedures for applying and a full listing of available positions are posted on the Web site fbijobs.gov. "This is a great time to apply for a great job in the FBI," said the bureau's chief spokesman, Richard Kolko. Officials note at least a few jobs are currently available in every one of the FBI's 56 field offices across the nation. The FBI lists openings throughout the year, but seldom has anything close to the current number of available positions. The present job postings expire on January 16, but a new, possibly smaller set of openings will be posted shortly thereafter, the agency said.

Question: how many support staffers

Question: What was responsible for the openings?

Question: Where were the job notices posted?

Question: What numbers were posted on website?

Question: What was responsible for the job openings?

Question: What did FBI do after 9/11?

Question: How many agents is the FBI seeking to Hire?

Answer: 2,100

Answer: The FBI

Answer: fbijobs.gov.

Answer: 850 special agents

Answer: FBI

Answer: posted openings for 850 special agents and more than 2,100 professional support personnel. Officials say it's the largest

Answer: 850 special

Summary:
FBI goes on biggest hiring blitz since 9/11 .
Postings on www.fbijobs.gov seek 850 agents, 2,100 support staffers .
Retirements, attrition responsible for openings, FBI says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite a hardline U.S. policy, there is no reason why federal officials can't negotiate directly with pirates who are holding a U.S. captain hostage off Somalia, a counterterrorism expert said Thursday.

Pirates have been plaguing commercial shipping vessels in the waters off the coast of east Africa.

Nor is there anything to stop an independent party from paying for his release, said Juan Carlos Zarate, who served as deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism under former President George W. Bush.

"The U.S. has a very clear policy of no concessions; that's different than no negotiations," said Zarate, now is a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The U.S. policy against concessions translates into a policy against paying for the release of hostages, he said.

"That means no ransoms, nothing of value in return for the safe release of hostages," he said.

But, he added, "It's also important to note that there's nothing in U.S. policy that restricts family members or private companies -- like a shipping company -- to actually pay a ransom. There's nothing that the U.S. government can do other than potentially to prosecute if that money is going to a known terrorist organization, which is a fine line."

Nevertheless, he said it is U.S. government policy to discourage private companies from making payments to hostage takers.

"The U.S. has a very clear sense that, if you start to pay ransoms, you in essence create an industry for kidnapping," he said.

"And, frankly, it's why you see an uptick in the piracy problem in East Africa. It's a for-profit venture. It's very lucrative at low cost for the pirates and it's, in part, fueled by the fact that shipping companies in other countries have been paying ransoms for the release of ships, cargo and personnel."

Zarate predicted the standoff off Somalia will not be resolved soon.

"I don't see or forecast the use of massive force inadvertently because of the potential for hurting our citizen," he said, referring to Richard Phillips, the captain of the Maersk Alabama who was taken hostage after four gunmen boarded it on Wednesday.

"And so I think this is going to take a while, and it may involve some third-party negotiations."

Though he approves of the government's handling of the situation so far, Zarate said the situation not an easy one.

"This, to a certain extent, is the U.S. government's nightmare scenario," said Zarate, who oversaw the U.S. government's counterterrorism strategy from 2005 to 2009.

"We had always planned for, but hoped that this kind of situation wouldn't happen -- where a U.S. vessel was taken or a U.S. citizen was taken in those waters," he said.

He called the standoff "a classic hostage situation, which is difficult to resolve. It is certainly difficult to resolve on the high seas where we have limited levers to play." iReport.com: How should the U.S. respond?

Zarate said the hostage holders appear to be in the stronger position, though at first glance -- four men holding a fifth aboard a 28-foot powerless lifeboat in the ocean hundreds of miles from shore -- that may not appear to be the case.

"I think they have the upper hand, in part, because we value the life of our citizens," he said. "They may not value their lives as much, and they may not be using the same rational calculus that we would in this situation."

But, he said, the pirates may not be able to turn that advantage into victory.

"I think the good guys will win," he said. iReport.com: 'Stop the pirates, Obama!'

"I think we'll find a way out of this. I think the FBI hostage negotiators, the naval personnel on scene and others will find a way of negotiating their way out of this. They're professionals; they know how to do that. But it's

Question:
what does paying ransom encourage
what is the reason for the standoff?
what is difficult in high seas
what did security adviser say?
what does paying random encourage?
what did Bush adviser say

Answer: an industry for kidnapping,"

Answer: no ransoms,

Answer: standoff "a classic hostage situation,

Answer: "The U.S. has a very clear policy of no concessions; that's different than no negotiations,"

Answer: you in essence create an industry for kidnapping,"

Answer: "The U.S. has a very clear policy of no concessions; that's different than no negotiations,"

Summary:
Paying ransom encourages more kidnappings for money, Juan Carlos Zarate says .
Standoff in high seas difficult because "we have limited levers to play," he says .
Attempts to free American captain off Somalia "going to take a while," he says .
"The good guys will win... but it's difficult," former Bush security adviser says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite crushing defeats in the last two elections, Senate Republicans have new "energy and enthusiasm" for winning back the majority, according to their leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. A top GOP leader says George W. Bush, politically, was a "millstone" around the GOP's neck. "President Bush had become extremely unpopular, and politically he was sort of a millstone around our necks in both '06 and '08," McConnell told reporters Friday. "We now have the opportunity to be on offense, offer our own ideas and we will win some." Many of those ideas get presented as amendments to Democratic bills, and even though they're usually defeated, they can draw attention to GOP policy alternatives and force Democrats to take difficult votes. "They become the way you chart the course for a comeback, which, in this country, always happens at some point," McConnell said. "The pendulum swings." McConnell said many of the ideas for amendments come from conservative think tanks and other Republican thinkers off Capitol Hill. "Newt Gingrich, for example, has an idea a minute. Many of those are quite good. Many of those become amendments," he said. McConnell also said he doesn't mind the "party of no" label Congressional Democrats and the White House give Republicans. "I don't feel anyone should be apologetic for opposing a bad idea," McConnell said. "I'm not fearful of an effort to demonize dissent." After being labeled by Democrats the "party of no" for criticizing the budget without offering solutions, House Republicans said Thursday that they have come up with a plan B -- though were later criticized for a lack of details. "Two nights ago, the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true, because here it is, Mr. President," House Minority leader Rep. John Boehner said Wednesday as he held up a booklet that he said was a "blueprint for where we're going." Watch GOP leaders unveil their 'leaner' budget » The details of the GOP budget will be presented on the House floor next week, said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin. "We're going to show a leaner budget, a budget with lower taxes, lower spending and lower borrowing," Ryan said. The blueprint includes familiar Republican proposals to limit "wasteful" government spending, cut the size of government and provide incentives to private entities to expand access to health care. It also includes a major overhaul of the tax code, proposing a marginal tax rate of 10 percent for income up to $100,000 and 25 percent for any income above that level. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs laughed off the Republicans' proposal Thursday, joking that their blueprint has more pictures of windmills than charts. "It's interesting to have a budget that doesn't contain any numbers. I think the 'party of no' has become the 'party of no new ideas,' " he said at the daily briefing. CNN contributor Paul Begala says that Republicans are simply out of ideas -- and have no one to blame but themselves. "The Republicans are like an arsonist who complains that the fire department is wasting water. Obama is trying to handle an immediate crisis while also laying the foundation for long-term growth. The Republicans are doing neither," Begala said. "They have no plan to stop the loss of jobs or to get capital markets functioning properly -- and they certainly have no plans for health care, education or energy, which are the keys to both long-term economic growth and long-term deficit reduction." Begala added: "If this were 'Sesame Street,' the announcer would be saying, 'This program brought to you by the letters G, O and P ... None of the crises the president is addressing were of his creation. All of them were created or worsened by the Republicans who ran the House of Representatives

Question: what Sen. Mitch McConnell says Bush was?

Question: Who said Bush was a millstone around our necks?

Question: Who said there was no need to apologize?

Question: Mitch McConnell reviewer?

Question: Who is plotting a comback?

Answer: a "millstone" around the GOP's neck.

Answer: McConnell

Answer: McConnell

Answer: "President Bush

Answer: Sen. Mitch McConnell

Summary:
Top Senate Republican says the party is plotting a "comeback"
Sen. Mitch McConnell says Bush was 'a millstone around our necks'
McConnell: No need to apologize "for opposing a bad idea"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Determining the amount of troops necessary to win a war is never an easy decision for a commander in chief and his military commanders if history is any guide. The Obama administration is working on a strategic review of improving conditions in Afghanistan. And it's a dilemma President Obama faces as pressure mounts on him to decide what strategy will improve conditions in Afghanistan. The president and his top military, national security and foreign policy advisers are conducting an intensive strategic review of the U.S. military presence in the war-torn nation. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is calling for a counterinsurgency strategy that would add as many as 40,000 troops. But others in the administration want a different approach. Vice President Joe Biden has called for a counterterrorism strategy, which would focus on using special forces and technology to reduce the number of al Qaeda insurgents on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If the president should listen to McChrystal and adopt a troop "surge," the question remains: How many is enough? One expert said such a large number is needed to reduce violence throughout the country -- the 40,000 troops would allow the U.S. military to "reverse the momentum of the insurgency, which has been on the rise," said Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War, who has advised McChrystal on Afghanistan. That number, Kagan said, would help fill in gaps around Kandahar in the southern part of the country where Taliban forces have amassed. But she warned that eventually, troops would also be needed to tamp down the insurgency in other parts of the country. "If we had 40,000 more troops, it is likely that the initiative would be wrested from the enemy, and the U.S. and coalition forces would be able to mount a counteroffensive that would proceed in stages over time," she said. Even with more troops, the fight will be a tough one if the last few weeks are any indication. Just last week, eight U.S. soldiers were killed in an intense firefight with hundreds of insurgents in Nuristan province, a remote area in northern Afghanistan. It was the second deadliest attack in a single day so far in the war, which recently entered its ninth year. Read soldiers' accounts from the battle The White House is getting pressure from all sides of this issue. Many on the right have said the president should take the advice of the commanders on the ground. Sen. John McCain, a staunch supporter of the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, said Sunday that any added military deployment in Afghanistan smaller than 40,000 troops "would be an error of historic proportions." Asked whether he thought the war in Afghanistan could be won with fewer troops, the Arizona Republican said, "I do not." "I think the great danger now is a half-measure, sort of a -- you know, try to please all ends of the political spectrum," McCain told John King on "CNN's State of the Union." "And, again, I have great sympathy for the president, making the toughest decisions that presidents have to make, but I think he needs to use deliberate speed." Democrats are split over increasing troops. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said U.S. troops would be put in "jeopardy" if Obama does not listen to McChrystal. "I don't know how you put somebody in who's as crackerjack as Gen. McChrystal, who gives the president very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations if you're not going to pull out," she said on ABC's "This Week." But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, who also appeared on ABC, said that enlarging the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan would be a mistake.  Watch more on the varying advice Obama is receiving from lawmakers » "We need to come up with a strategy that includes an exit strategy, because it'll also put pressure on the government of Afghanistan to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far."

Question: For how many more troops Obama`s top commander called for?

Question: where is the war

Question: On what Obama and his national security team has been working on it?

Question: The war in Afghanistan passed what year mark last week?

Question: Who is working on a new strategy?

Question: His top commander there has reportedly called for how many more troops?

Answer: 40,000

Answer: Afghanistan.

Answer: a strategic review of improving conditions in Afghanistan.

Answer: ninth

Answer: Obama administration

Answer: 40,000

Summary:
The war in Afghanistan passed the 8-year mark last week .
Obama and his national security team are working on a new strategy .
His top commander there has reportedly called for 40,000 more troops .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Development threatens to engulf Civil War battlefields, a preservationist group said as it released its annual list of endangered battle sites on Wednesday. Civil War reenactors fire a cannon at the Gettysburg, Pennsylavnia, battlefield in 2003. "In town after town, the irreplaceable battlefields that define those communities are being marred forever," said James Lighthizer, the head of the Civil War Preservation Trust. "As we approach the sesquicentennial of the bloodiest conflict in our nation's history, we need to be more aware than ever of the importance of preserving these sacred places for generations to come." The group says it has helped save more than 25,000 acres of Civil War battlefields in 18 states. Topping the 2009 list of endangered battlefields is Monocacy, Maryland, where the Preservation Trust wants to prevent a trash-processing facility with a 350-foot smokestack from being built nearby. In Virginia, the group is fighting to keep a Wal-Mart Supercenter from going up on the edge of the Wilderness Battlefield, which also is on this year's list. On that site, 160,000 Union and Confederate troops fought a two-day battle in 1864. "These hallowed battlegrounds should be national shrines, monuments to American valor, determination and courage," actor Richard Dreyfuss said in prepared remarks.  "Once these irreplaceable treasures are gone, they're gone forever." Dreyfuss has been involved in a pair of Civil War documentaries. Rounding out the group's Top 10 list of endangered battlefields are:

Question: What happened in Maryland?

Question: What did Dreyfuss say?

Question: What does Richard Dreyfuss say?

Question: What are being threatened?

Question: What could be built?

Question: What is threatening sites?

Question: What might be built near a Maryland battlefield?

Question: Where is the Walmart?

Question: What is wrong with civil war sites?

Answer: the Preservation Trust wants to prevent a trash-processing facility with a 350-foot smokestack from being built nearby.

Answer: "These hallowed battlegrounds should be national shrines, monuments to American valor, determination and courage,"

Answer: "Once these irreplaceable treasures are gone, they're gone forever."

Answer: Civil War battlefields,

Answer: 350-foot smokestack

Answer: Development

Answer: Wal-Mart Supercenter

Answer: Virginia,

Answer: Development threatens to engulf

Summary:
Development threatens to destroy historic Civil War sites, group says .
Trash processing center may be built near Maryland battlefield .
Wal-Mart proposes store adjacent to Virginia's Wilderness battlefield .
Sites are "irreplaceable treasures," actor Richard Dreyfuss says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Doctors removed five small polyps from President Bush's colon on Saturday, and "none appeared worrisome," a White House spokesman said.

The polyps were removed and sent to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, for routine microscopic examination, spokesman Scott Stanzel said. Results are expected in two to three days.

All were small, less than a centimeter [half an inch] in diameter, he said.

Bush is in good humor, Stanzel said, and will resume his activities at Camp David.

During the procedure Vice President Dick Cheney assumed presidential power. Bush reclaimed presidential power at 9:21 a.m. after about two hours.

Doctors used "monitored anesthesia care," Stanzel said, so the president was asleep, but not as deeply unconscious as with a true general anesthetic.

He spoke to first lady Laura Bush -- who is in Midland, Texas, celebrating her mother's birthday -- before and after the procedure, Stanzel said.

Afterward, the president played with his Scottish terriers, Barney and Miss Beazley, Stanzel said. He planned to have lunch at Camp David and have briefings with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and planned to take a bicycle ride Saturday afternoon.

Cheney, meanwhile, spent the morning at his home on Maryland's eastern shore, reading and playing with his dogs, Stanzel said. Nothing occurred that required him to take official action as president before Bush reclaimed presidential power.

The procedure was supervised by Dr. Richard Tubb, Bush's physician, and conducted by a multidisciplinary team from the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, the White House said.

Bush's last colonoscopy was in June 2002, and no abnormalities were found, White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

The president's doctor had recommended a repeat procedure in about five years.

A colonoscopy is the most sensitive test for colon cancer, rectal cancer and polyps, small clumps of cells that can become cancerous, according to the Mayo Clinic. Small polyps may be removed during the procedure.

Snow said on Friday that Bush had polyps removed during colonoscopies before becoming president.

Snow himself is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer that began in his colon and spread to his liver.  Watch Snow talk about Bush's procedure and his own colon cancer »

"The president wants to encourage everybody to use surveillance," Snow said.

The American Cancer Society recommends that people without high risk factors or symptoms begin getting screened for signs of colorectal cancer at age 50. E-mail to a friend

Question: Where does Bush undergo his colonoscopy?

Question: What camp  did Bush undergoe colonoscopy?

Question: Who was at Camp David?

Question: Were the polyps considered dangerous?

Question: Who is the vice president?

Question: Did they remove the polyps?

Question: What is a colonoscopy?

Question: What did the spokesman say?

Question: Who underwent a colonoscopy?

Question: What was found during the colonoscopy?

Question: What medical test did Bush have?

Question: What kind of surgery did George Bush have at Camp David?

Question: Who will reclaim their power?

Question: which president is at camp david?

Question: Does he have to go back?

Question: What number of polyps were they worried about?

Question: What are polyps?

Question: What was found during the procedure?

Question: To whom does the President reclaim transferred powers?

Question: What number of polyps were found?

Question: When does he get the power back?

Question: What happened to Bush?

Question: Which President undergoes  a routine colonscopy at Camp David?

Answer: National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland,

Answer: David.

Answer: Bush

Answer: no abnormalities

Answer: Dick Cheney

Answer: Doctors removed five small

Answer: the most sensitive test for colon cancer, rectal cancer and polyps, small clumps of cells that can become cancerous,

Answer: The polyps were removed and sent to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, for routine microscopic examination,

Answer: Bush

Answer: five small polyps

Answer: routine microscopic examination,

Answer: removed five small polyps from

Answer: Bush reclaimed presidential

Answer: Bush

Answer: a repeat procedure in about five years.

Answer: five

Answer: small clumps of cells that can become cancerous,

Answer: five small polyps

Answer: Vice

Answer: five

Answer: 9:21 a.m.

Answer: Doctors removed five small polyps from President

Answer: Bush's

Summary:
Five small polyps found during procedure; "none worrisome," spokesman says .
President reclaims powers transferred to vice president .
Bush undergoes routine colonoscopy at Camp David .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Don't let Jack Johnson fool you. Jack Johnson makes sure his business and his concert venues are environmentally friendly. Tabbed as a "mellow rocker" by perhaps one too many publications, the chart-topping singer-songwriter has a fire within that belies his laid-back manner -- a fire that extends to his company, Brushfire Records, and his environmental activism. Johnson started the record label in 2002 "as a way to put out soundtracks for surf movies we were making," he says. "Then our friends G. Love and Special Sauce were coming to the end of their record deal with another label, and the idea came up to put out their stuff." The Hawaii-based artist -- whose latest album "Sleep Through the Static" hit No. 1 in the U.S. and sold over 2 million albums worldwide -- has continued to assemble talent. The label's roster now includes indie-rockers Rogue Wave, folk-pop musician Mason Jennings and keyboardist Money Mark. Johnson says the record label is not driven by dollar signs. "We never try to talk anybody into joining the label, but we just offer a lot of creative control over all their music and a fairer deal than with most other labels," he explains.  Watch Johnson, Zach Gill and Money Mark perform "Hope" » Rogue Wave frontman Zach Schwartz is one of the converts. "The music business is traditionally pretty cutthroat, nasty and evil, but [with Brushfire], it is not that way," he tells CNN. "You can make the music you want to make." Still, even in these major-label-dominated times, artist-friendly labels aren't unusual; Dave Matthews has also attracted talent with his ATO Records. It's in making Brushfire a model of green business that Johnson and his colleagues have stood out. As keen environmentalists, Johnson and his team have required Brushfire and its distributors to engage in earth-friendly implementations that have influenced others in the record business. "The music is one thing, but there is this business side," says Zach Gill, a Brushfire solo artist and member of Johnson's touring band. "I think more and more businesses are saying, 'Yeah, we want to be responsible. Responsible to our employees. Responsible for the waste our company generates.' We're starting to see that a lot in all kinds of businesses, not just in music," he says.  Watch Gill and Johnson perform "Family" » Entertainment industry giant Universal Music Group -- the largest family of record labels in the recording industry -- has taken notice. Under Brushfire's direction, UMG uses recycled stock on all of the packaging for its releases, including movies, ensuring that the paper is as environmentally friendly as possible. Some is even made using wind power. Moreover, Brushfire's artists have exerted their eco-influence on venues and promoters for concert tours worldwide. The tour rider, a checklist of artists' requirements at each venue, usually consists of specific brands of beer or (in one case involving Jennifer Lopez) the way the coffee is stirred. Brushfire uses an EnviroRider, a handbook of eco-friendly options and actions for various components of concert tour production. "It gets augmented every year. What started out as suggestions are now becoming requirements [for us to play at a venue]," says Johnson. Johnson and his management also created All At Once, a social action network that provides tools and information to people who want to become more involved in their community and worldwide. Visitors to the All At Once area at tour venues will be rewarded with exclusive music downloads by their favorite Brushfire artists. Johnson's charity, Ohana Charitable Foundation, will match any donation (up to $2,500) to nonprofits made by fans at the shows or online. "We shrink our carbon footprint always, but we have all these nonprofit groups that we all work with," says Johnson. "Money from the shows goes to these groups and helps bolster their memberships

Question: What is Jack Johnson's record label called?

Question: Can you tell me the name of Jack Johnson's new album?

Answer: Brushfire

Answer: "Sleep Through the Static"

Summary:
Jack Johnson has artist-friendly record label, Brushfire Records .
Johnson also puts green interests at forefront .
Singer-songwriter's new album is "Sleep Through the Static"