(CNN) -- President Obama on Saturday urged a thorough investigation into a deadly explosion at a West Virginia coal mine that killed 29 people, hours after rescue efforts at the mine gave way to an operation to recover the dead.

"This has been America's worst mining disaster in forty years, and the toll on all West Virginians has been immeasurable, " Obama said of Monday's blast at the Upper Big Branch mine. "We cannot bring back the men we lost. What we can do, in their memory, is thoroughly investigate this tragedy and demand accountability."

Obama's statement came just hours after rescue efforts came to a grim end after crews found the bodies of the last four miners unaccounted for in the explosion. Twenty-five people were previously announced dead.

"My thoughts and prayers are with the families of all those who were lost in this tragic accident, and my gratitude goes out to the rescue teams who worked so tirelessly and heroically to search for the missing," Obama said in his statement.

The death toll makes the West Virginia mining disaster the worst in the U.S. since 1972, when 91 miners were killed in a fire at the Sunshine Mine in Kellogg, Idaho.

Of the 29 dead in the West Virginia blast, the bodies of 22 remain inside the mine.

The cause of the blast is unknown, and state and federal officials have pledged a full investigation.

The explosion has prompted renewed questions about mine safety.

Obama said Saturday that "all Americans deserve to work in a place that is safe, and we must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that all our miners are as safe as possible so that a disaster like this doesn't happen again."

Obama will meet next week with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and a Mine Safety and Health Administration official to hear their initial assessment of what caused the blast, along with their recommendations for steps the federal government should take to improve mine safety.

Richmond, Virginia-based Massey Energy Co., which owns the mine, said in a statement released Friday that it will conduct "extensive" reviews of the mine accident "to ensure that a similar incident doesn't happen again."

It said the mine has had less than one violation per day in inspections by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and added that that rate is "consistent with national averages."

Most of the blast victims were working in an area where long wall cutting was taking place. The technique uses a large grinder to extract the coal and creates large amounts of coal dust and methane gas, both of which are explosive.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin said Saturday that even though it's not clear what caused the explosion, there needs to be a focus on better ventilation and on sensors to alert mine personnel when gas levels become dangerous.

"There was no way to protect them against this," he said. "You just have to prevent it and make sure it doesn't happen again."

Question: What is the death toll?

Question: Who calls for thorough investigation into mine blast?

Question: Who calls for a thorough investigation into the mine blast?

Question: Where were most of the victims working?

Question: How many people died in the coal mine explosion?

Question: How many miners found dead?

Answer: 29

Answer: Obama

Answer: Obama

Answer: Virginia coal mine

Answer: 29

Answer: 29

Summary:
President Obama calls for thorough investigation into mine blast .
Four missing miners found dead; death toll in West Virginia coal mine explosion now at 29 .
Most of the victims were working in an area where long wall cutting was taking place .


(CNN) -- President Obama on Thursday called on business leaders from the private sector to generate ideas that will "accelerate job creation" and stimulate investment in the United States. "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector," Obama told attendees of the at the White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth. More than 100 CEOs, small-business owners, business leaders, mayors and academics attended. "We don't have enough public dollars to fill the hole of private dollars that was created as a consequence of the crisis. It is only when the private sector starts to reinvest again; only when our businesses start hiring again and people start spending again and families start seeing improvement in their own lives again, that we're going to have the kind of economy that we want," Obama said. The summit took place amid allegations from members of Obama's own party that the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership are not doing enough to help the unemployed. Critics called the summit nothing more than a publicity stunt, and some are threatening to organize a march on Washington of jobless Americans if efforts to get more aid fail. "Obviously, there's something that's not getting through to them," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois. "We'll get the American people involved. You know, I can see a day, unless we get some real cooperation and real help, I can really see a day where there will be a jobless march on Washington." Rush and Reps. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Candice Miller, R-Michigan, chair the new congressional Jobs Now Caucus, which is made up of 112 Democrats and 17 Republicans. Proposals being floated by members of the caucus include redirecting stimulus and TARP money to jobs programs and pressing for a new jobs bill, which they're careful not to call a "stimulus." The summit also fell on the eve of the release of the government's November unemployment report. The nation is expected to have lost another 114,000 jobs, with unemployment remaining at 10.2 percent, the highest in 26 years, according to a survey by economists. Yet Obama projected a positive tone as he recounted some of the day's discussions, on topics from clean energy and tax incentives to the export market, and the overlap among them. "When we were in the infrastructure session, there was a strong emphasis on needing to plan not just for existing road projects, but also, how do we think about the fact that, in the future, we need a cleaner transportation industry?" he said. "When we were in the clean energy session, there was an emphasis on how do we get small businesses and small contractors to get certified and get the financing needed to move forward and take advantage of these clean energy sector opportunities," he said. "There's a lot of overlap between all these different breakout sessions that we engaged in," he said. "We're going to have to figure out how to break out of these silos and integrate these strategies if we're going to be able to get the most bang for the buck." Coinciding with the jobs forum, organized labor and religious leaders in several cities sponsored events featuring unemployed and underemployed people to raise the public profile of the issue. Events were held in Dayton, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; and Sacramento, California, on Wednesday, and in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday. CNN's Jessica Yellin and Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.

Question: what does Obama says about the true economic recovery?

Question: Where did Obama say true economic recovery will come from?

Question: on what state some threaten to organize the march?

Question: the summit occurs amid allegations of what?

Question: Who do forum attendees include?

Answer: is only going to come from the private sector,"

Answer: the private sector,"

Answer: Washington

Answer: of Obama's own party that the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership are not doing enough to help the unemployed.

Answer: More than 100 CEOs, small-business owners, business leaders, mayors and academics

Summary:
"True economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector," says Obama .
Forum attendees include CEOs, small-business owners, mayors, academics .
Summit occurs amid allegations that White House is not doing enough to help unemployed .
Critics call summit a publicity stunt, some threaten to organize march on Washington .


(CNN) -- President Obama said Thursday that watching the arrival of 18 flag-draped cases containing bodies of Americans killed in Afghanistan was a "sobering reminder" of U.S. sacrifice as he prepares to decide on sending more troops there. At a brief media appearance with visiting Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Obama was asked whether his unannounced appearance at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the pre-dawn dignified transfer of the bodies would influence his decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. "Obviously, it was a sobering reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our young men and women in uniform are engaging in every single day," the president said. Obama said the burden of war on U.S. troops and their families will "bear on how I see these conflicts." "It is something I think about each and every day," he said. Also in attendance for the transfer of the bodies were Attorney General Eric Holder and Michele Leonhart, acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The bodies included three DEA special agents and 15 U.S. troops who died in Afghanistan this week. The agents were killed Monday as they returned from a raid on a compound believed to be harboring insurgents tied to drug trafficking. Seven U.S. troops also died when their helicopter went down in western Afghanistan. The military transport that landed in Delaware also included the bodies of eight U.S. soldiers killed Tuesday when their vehicles were hit by roadside bombs in two incidents in southern Afghanistan. The soldiers were from the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division, based at Fort Lewis, Washington. The DEA identified the agents killed Monday as Forrest N. Leamon, 37, of Woodbridge, Virginia; Chad L. Michael, 30, of Quantico, Virginia; and Michael E. Weston, 37, of Washington. Leamon and Michael were members of the DEA's Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support Teams, and Weston was assigned to the agency's Kabul office. CNN's Carol Cratty contributed to this report.

Question: Who were killed by roadside bomb in Afghanistan?

Question: How many soldiers die

Question: Who were recently killed in helicopter crash?

Question: What did the US troops die of?

Question: What was on hand of Obama?

Question: who was recently killed?

Answer: eight U.S. soldiers

Answer: 18

Answer: Seven U.S. troops

Answer: hit by roadside bombs

Answer: "sobering reminder"

Answer: three DEA special agents and 15 U.S. troops

Summary:
President Obama was on hand as bodies of soldiers who died in Afghanistan returned home .
DEA agents, U.S. troops were recently killed in helicopter crash .
Eight U.S. soldiers also killed by roadside bomb in Afghanistan .


(CNN) -- President Obama said Tuesday that the country already is "seeing shovels hit the ground" on the first infrastructure repair project funded through the Transportation Department's share of the $787 billion stimulus bill. Workers mark where repairs are needed on Maryland Route 650. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "The work begins today in Montgomery County, Maryland, where a work crew is starting on a project to resurface Maryland State Highway 650 -- a very busy road that has not been fully repaired in 17 years." The resurfacing contract is going to a Pennsylvania-based family-owned company, American Infrastructure, LaHood said. He said the project will support 60 jobs. "And that's how we're going to get the country back on its feet," LaHood added. Mark Compton, director of government affairs for American Infrastructure, said his company received $2.1 million in federal funds, by way of the Maryland State Highway Administration. The money will be used to repave and add safety features to a stretch of the highway. Compton said the cash infusion is the "catalyst" to create 60 jobs, including bringing back some laid-off employees. He said he hopes the workers can be retained beyond this six-month project. "We'll continue to bid, so the goal is to get more projects to keep those guys working, so they can roll off that project onto another," Compton said. CNNMoney: Stimulus funds hit the street Obama and LaHood on Tuesday announced the release of $27 billion in funds from the stimulus package "to help states create a 21st-century infrastructure." The president said it is part of the "largest new investment in America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System." Obama said another 200 construction projects would be launched over the next few weeks, "fueling growth in an industry that's been hard hit by our economic crisis." Two weeks ago, Obama signed into law his stimulus plan, known as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The president has said the plan will create or save up to 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. Four-hundred thousand of those will be infrastructure jobs that include rebuilding roads, bridges and schools. LaHood has asked the nation's governors to certify projects and provide assurances that funds from the act will be spent for appropriate infrastructure projects. Obama said transportation projects would be stamped with a special emblem so people can see where their tax dollars are going. Obama said the investments in highways would create or save 150,000 jobs by the end of 2010. The number of jobs being created or saved in one year is more than the number of jobs the Big Three automakers have lost in manufacturing over the past three years, Obama said. By investing in roads "that should have been rebuilt long ago," Obama said, "we can save some 14,000 men and women who lose their lives each year due to bad roads and driving conditions." "Poor roads are a public hazard, and we have a responsibility to fix them," he said.  Watch Obama explain how the roads will save lives » Obama also announced Tuesday that the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve were launching the Consumer and Business Lending Initiative. When fully implemented, Obama said, the initiative "will generate up to a trillion dollars in new lending for the American people, and this will help unlock our frozen credit markets, which is absolutely essential for economic recovery." CNNMoney's Aaron Smith contributed to this report.

Question: How many jobs will be supported?

Question: How many construction projects are to be launched in the near future?

Question: What did Obama say about investing in roads ?

Question: According to Obama, what will save lives ?

Question: How many further construction projects will be launched?

Question: How many jobs will be saved by the Highway project?

Question: What will create or save 150,000 jobs by end of 2010 /

Question: What type of project is it?

Question: Where is the new highway resurfacing project ?

Answer: 60

Answer: 200

Answer: "largest new investment in America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System."

Answer: roads

Answer: 200

Answer: 60

Answer: investments in highways

Answer: infrastructure repair

Answer: Montgomery County, Maryland,

Summary:
New highway resurfacing project in Maryland is expected to support 60 jobs .
President Obama: Highway spending will create or save 150,000 jobs by end of 2010 .
Another 200 construction projects to be launched in next few weeks .
Investing in roads will save lives, Obama says .


(CNN) -- President Obama says the new Buffett Rule "is not class warfare," raising once again the question of why he and his party keep rowing back from one of the Democrats' most potent arguments.

They seem to have accepted the Republicans' pejorative definition of economic class warfare as an un-American evil. As Warren Buffet points out, middle-income Americans ought to be protesting a system in which billionaires like him pay a third to a half of the 33% tax rate of Buffet's secretary.

In fact, nonviolent class struggle over income distribution has a long and beneficial history in this country and most other industrial democracies. Starting with the rise of the Populist Party in the late 19th century, continuing into the Progressive Era and the New Deal, grabbing for and getting a bigger slice of the economic pie for wage earners has been a major stabilizing force in American democracy. We are now racing in the direction of income polarization and the political instability that inevitably accompanies the contraction of the middle class and a concentration of wealth within a tiny minority.

Based on the numbers, President Obama ought to be able to win this argument easily. As former President Clinton pointed out in an interview Monday, 10% of the population have taken 90% of the benefits of economic growth. James Carville is probably right that it's time for Obama to fire the White House communications team and carry the economic fight to the Republicans. It could hardly hurt when the voters who are getting their pockets picked are siding with the Republican corporate oligarchs who used to be the Democrats' arch-villains.

In the current journalistic environment only the rich may be greedy without blame, and it is not just Fox, but the mainstream media, as well, that parrots the "class warfare" criticism and puts a negative spin on anything that can be called "populism." For their part, Congressional Democrats seem allergic to their own president's advocacy of a minimally fair tax rate on rich individuals and corporations.

They are also timid about challenging the Republicans on their myth-making propaganda about "job creators." What evidence can House Speaker John Boehner and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan produce that repealing Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000 and allowing the top marginal tax rates of 33 percent and 35 percent to revert to 36 percent and 39.6 percent next year would prevent corporations and investors from creating jobs?

What can be deduced is that corporations are content to sit on their $2 trillion in cash reserves as long as tax breaks and lax regulations make reinvestment for growth a less attractive alternative. All MBA students are taught "cash is king," and the banks have taken the slogan so seriously they won't even release to credit markets the $2 trillion in bailout funds given them as a gift outright. The job creators aren't creating anything. They're sitting on every tax-free dollar they can while the sitting is good.

So how did we get to this point? Something is clearly wrong with Kansas and the rest of Middle America when it comes to letting economic self-interest guide their voting.

The decline of the labor movement, which was a powerful instrument of economic education for the masses, surely must have something to do with it. Then there is the impact of more than 30 years of conservative distortion of America's economic vocabulary since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. He showed his party that making vague promises to preserve the "safety net" was smarter politics than tackling the real problems of Social Security disability, private pension funds and indigent health care. By 1984, the Democratic nominee, Walter Mondale, was ridiculed for trying to make campaign themes of "fairness" and "compassion."

This history gives one pause about urging Obama to argue more openly for fairer distribution of income. Certainly if we are in a class war over money, only one side is fighting. Probably not even Reagan, an ex-New Dealer, expected so complete a turnaround on what used to be called "pocketbook issues."

In interviewing a Republican guest, Mitch

Question:
Which person says the issue is potent?
what is a potent issue
Which party runs from class warefare?

Answer: President

Answer: why he and his party keep rowing back from one of the Democrats' most

Answer: Republicans'

Summary:
Howell Raines: Obama, Dems run from class warfare notion even though it's potent issue .
He says class struggle over income distribution not un-American, historically beneficial .
He says as corporations sit on $2 trillion, not reinvesting, Dems, media buy into job creation myth .
Raines: If this is class warfare that will bring income equality, only one side is actually fighting .


(CNN) -- President Obama should end the legal seminar on the rights of terrorists. He should instruct the lawyers at the State and Justice departments and Pentagon that the debate is over.

The time has come for all to accept that terrorists cannot be treated as criminals. The main reason is that security requires preventing attacks rather than prosecuting the perpetrators after an attack. This is particularly evident when we concern ourselves with terrorists who may acquire weapons of mass destruction.

It also holds for terrorists who are willing to commit suicide attacks: They cannot be tried, and they pay no mind to what might be done to them after their assault. Finally, even terrorists not bent on committing suicide attacks are often "true believers" who are prepared to proceed despite whatever punishments the legal system may throw at them.

In contrast to prevention, law enforcement often springs into action after a criminal has acted: when a body is found, a bank has been robbed or a child has been kidnapped.

By and large, the criminal law approach is retrospective rather than prospective. Law enforcement assumes that punishment serves to deter future crimes -- not to eliminate them, but to keep them at a socially acceptable level. This will not do for the likes of Osama bin Laden.

Nor should terrorists be treated as soldiers, a dignified profession and calling. Soldiers wear uniforms that allow one to tell foes from civilians and thus prevent harming the latter when fighting the former. And the insignias that mark soldiers make it clear which governments they serve, governments that can be held accountable for their conduct -- obligations terrorists refuse to discharge. They cannot have it both ways: flout the rules of war and seek the benefits of these rules as prisoners of war.

Obama surely has the legal training to realize that our minds are big enough to cope with more than two categories, that terrorists are neither fish nor fowl, neither criminals nor soldiers, but a distinct species.

As such, terrorists are not without any rights. They should not be killed if they can be captured without undue risk; they should not be tortured; and their detention should be subject to, say, annual review by an institutional board -- composed of people who have security clearance, not necessarily military officers. Such a board should follow simplified procedures, as parole boards do in prisons, rather than those of civilian courts or military commissions.

Click here for more on this subject from Etzioni

Terrorists should not be entitled to face their accusers, or else we would divulge the sources and methods of our information-gathering about their nefarious acts. And they should not be released until we have strong reasons to hold that they are no longer a danger to us, our allies or anyone else.

The Obama administration's position is so multifaceted that even someone who follows it closely and has considerable training cannot make out what line it is following. Some terrorists are to be tried in civilian courts -- as long as they are not in New York, or maybe only if the civilian courts are located on a military base. Or terrorists may be kept at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or shipped to countries that do not abide by our rules or maybe only to those that do.

No one can build public support and legitimacy for such a cacophony of positions and voices. It is time to settle the matter and tell the government lawyers to move on.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Amitai Etzioni.

Question: Who can't be treated as criminals according to Etzioni?

Question: what does etzioni say about terrorist?

Question: who arent soldiers?

Question: Who said Obama should set one clear position on treatment of terrorists?

Question: what does amitai say?

Answer: terrorists

Answer: cannot be treated as criminals.

Answer: terrorists

Answer: Amitai Etzioni.

Answer: No one can build public support and legitimacy for such a cacophony of positions and voices. It is time to settle the matter and tell the government lawyers to move on.

Summary:
Amitai Etzioni: President Obama should set one clear  position on treatment of terrorists .
Etzioni: Terrorists can't be treated as criminals; prevention, not prosecution, needed .
They aren't soldiers, he says, since uniforms set troops apart from civilians, show nationality .
Terrorists deserve rights but aren't entitled to face their accusers, Etzioni says .


(CNN) -- President Obama stepped into office with big approval ratings met with high expectations as he faces a deteriorating economic situation, an unpopular war in Iraq and the Middle East conflict.

The economy has been the main focus of the first week of President Obama's presidency.

In his first week, Obama has focused on the economy, but he's also addressed other campaign promises.

Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, describes Obama's first week as a "neat balancing act."

As Obama signs executive orders signaling a clear change of direction, he's also working hard to get bipartisan support for his economic stimulus, Schneider said.

"Mr. Obama doesn't have to do that. He could get a stimulus bill passed almost entirely with Democratic votes. But Obama doesn't want to be yet another president who divides the country," he said.

The president has been working the phones with his party and made an unusual trip to Capitol Hill to meet with the opposing party to rally support for his $825 billion economic aid package.

Following a meeting Tuesday with GOP congressman, Obama said he respects the "legitimate philosophical differences" between Democrats and Republicans on how to stimulate the economy.

"I don't expect 100 percent agreement," he said. "But I hope we can put politics aside."  Watch more on Obama's economic push »

Throughout the election season, Obama campaigned on his plan to restore economic equilibrium, and in his first public remarks after winning the election, he vowed to "confront this economic crisis head-on."

Obama faces his first test with Congress on Wednesday when the House of Representatives votes on his economic recovery plan. The president has said he hopes to have the plan passed by Congress and on his desk for signing by mid-February.

Obama also has wasted no time in putting his military and diplomatic agendas into action.

In his first week, he already promised to send as many as 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to boost the U.S. presence on the ground and increase development and reconstruction assistance.

Seeking to demonstrate the Obama administration's early commitment to the country, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met last week with Afghan women legal professionals who were in Washington on a State Department training program on justice reform in Afghanistan.

Obama also has pledged to crack down on militants in neighboring Pakistan.

During the campaign season, Obama received a lot of criticism for saying that if it were necessary to root out terrorists, he would send U.S. forces into Pakistan without the country's approval.

The president has called Afghanistan and Pakistan the "central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism," and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that missile strikes in Pakistan will continue to root out al Qaeda members.

"Let me just say, both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda is. And we will continue to pursue this," Gates said.

As Obama seeks to stabilize the region, his administration has been advocating multilateralism and stressing "smart power" diplomacy by using all the tools of foreign policy available.

Obama dispatched newly appointed Middle East envoy George Mitchell to the region and tapped diplomatic heavyweight Richard Holbrooke as his special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama also gave his first formal interview as president to Al-Arabiya, an Arab news channel, sending a message to the region that he wants a dialogue.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told the Dubai-based satellite television network. "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."  Watch how Obama is reaching out to Muslims »

During his run for the White House, Obama pledged to improve ties with the Muslim world, draw down U.S. troops in Iraq and close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Two days after his inauguration, Obama issued an executive order to close the camp within a year. Another order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army Field Manual

Question: What was the cost of the economic stimulus plan?

Question: What is the value of the stimulus plan

Question: What is the new administration advocating?

Question: With which news channel did Obama grant his first formal interview?

Question: Which camp did Obama order closed

Answer: $825 billion

Answer: $825 billion

Answer: multilateralism and stressing "smart power" diplomacy

Answer: CNN's

Answer: Guantanamo Bay,

Summary:
President Obama faces first test with vote on $825 billion economic stimulus plan .
Obama reverses Bush policy on abortion, orders closing of Guantanamo Bay camp .
Obama grants first formal interview of his presidency to Arab news channel .
New administration advocating multilateralism, "smart power" diplomacy .


(CNN) -- President Obama takes his first foreign trip Thursday, but domestic politics will loom large as he tackles the explosive issue of protectionism in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the leader of the United States' largest trade partner. Trade will be a major issue when President Obama visits Canada beginning Thursday. At issue is a controversial so-called "Buy American" provision requiring the use of U.S.-produced iron, steel, and other manufactured goods in public works projects funded by the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Several Democratic-leaning unions and domestic steel and iron producers favor the provision; a large number of business and trade organizations are opposed. Administration officials altered the language in the final version of the stimulus bill to ensure that the provision will not trump existing trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA. Canadian companies will therefore still have the chance to sell products used in stimulus-funded projects. Canadian government officials, however, are still concerned by what they perceive as rising protectionist sentiment in the United States that could potentially spark a trade war and, in their opinion, deepen the global economic crisis. Canada has been hit hard by the global downturn. The country's critical manufacturing-based sales dropped 8 percent in December, reflecting roughly equal decreases in both volume and price, according to Statistics Canada, an agency charged with tracking key economic data for officials in Ottawa. In a recent letter to U.S. Senate leaders, Canada's ambassador to the United States warned that the U.S. was losing the moral authority to pressure other nations not to erect their own trade barriers. "A rush to protectionist actions could create a downward spiral like the world experienced in the 1930s," wrote Ambassador Michael Wilson. "In the end we got into this economic crisis together. We need to work together to build ourselves out of it." Some Canadian leaders also cite unresolved concerns over what they perceive to be vague and potentially harmful language in the "Buy American" provision. Specifically, they are questioning whether NAFTA and World Trade Organization rules will apply to state and city governments receiving stimulus money for local infrastructure projects. They also cite uncertainty over what rules of origin apply to projects covered under the stimulus bill. A number of components in Canadian products come from countries such as China and India, which are effectively excluded by the "Buy American" provision. "This is no merely technical question; different parts of many products come from different places, and intricately entwined supply chains could be seriously disturbed if they have to be disentangled, to the detriment of both the U.S. and Canada," the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper editorialized Tuesday. "Such questions cannot wait for judgments in trade litigation," the Globe and Mail argued. "Canadian governments and businesses ... have to be ready for a long series of many minor battles." Obama stumbled over Canadian trade issues during last year's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Shortly before the Ohio primary in March, he was extremely critical of NAFTA. Many Rust Belt voters believe the accord has cost countless jobs by accelerating the erosion of the U.S. industrial base. During a debate with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed that the United States should abandon the treaty if it could not be renegotiated. It was later revealed that one of Obama's economic advisers, Austan Goolsbee, had met with officials at Canada's Chicago, Illinois, consulate and allegedly assured them that Obama's trade rhetoric was more a function of politics than any deeply held policy position.

Question: What is the big issue referring to?

Question: who was he meeting?

Question: where was he going

Question: Does this interfere with NAFTA?

Question: What are Canadian officials worried about?

Question: Who is President Obama meeting in Canada?

Answer: of protectionism in

Answer: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

Answer: Canada

Answer: will not trump existing trade agreements such as

Answer: they perceive as rising protectionist sentiment in the United States that could potentially spark a trade war and, in their opinion, deepen the global economic crisis.

Answer: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

Summary:
President Obama leaves for Canada on Thursday; to meet with Canadian PM Harper .
One big issue: the "Buy American" provision in stimulus plan .
Bill now says that provision will not trump existing trade agreements like NAFTA .
Still, Canadian officials worry about what they see as new U.S. protectionist tilt .


(CNN) -- President Obama told West Point graduates that the United States faces "difficult days ahead" in its fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and said that the threat posed by al Qaeda operatives across the globe "will not go away soon."

Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy commencement in New York, Obama praised the graduates for their achievements and laid out a scenario of military and societal challenges in what is the ninth West Point commencement during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fight against international terrorism.

"This time of war began in Afghanistan, a place that may seem as far from this peaceful bend in the Hudson River as anywhere on Earth," Obama said, referring to a conflict that started after the al Qaeda terror network attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

"The war began only because our own cities and civilians were attacked by violent extremists who plotted from that distant place, and it continues only because that plotting persists to this day."

While the United States and its allies battled in Afghanistan, the U.S. military launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003, toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and battling insurgents for years until that war began to wind down in the last couple of years. But the Afghan conflict persists as the United States and its allies battle tenacious militants from the Taliban militant movement.

Obama said as the Iraq war ends, America is "pressing forward in Afghanistan" and faces a "tough fight" against a nimble insurgency.

"From Marja to Kandahar, that is what the Taliban has done through assassination, indiscriminate killing and intimidation," Obama said, referring to the main militant and two southern Afghan battlegrounds. "And any country that has known decades of war will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems, and providing governance that can sustain progress and serve the needs of its people. "

Obama said that even though the nature of the war has changed in the past nine years, it remains just as important as it was after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He said the United States has helped bring hope and sovereign government to Afghanistan, but "there will be difficult days ahead."

"We toppled the Taliban regime; now we must break the momentum of a Taliban insurgency and train Afghan security forces," he said. "We will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan."

As for al Qaeda's activities, Obama defended the "campaign to disrupt, dismantle and to defeat al Qaeda," saying it's an "international effort that is necessary and just."

While he said there has been "more success in eliminating al Qaeda leaders in recent months than in recent years," the group will continue its recruitment efforts.

"We see that in bombs that go off in Kabul and Karachi. We see it in attempts to blow up an airliner over Detroit or an SUV in Times Square, even as these failed attacks show that pressure on networks like al Qaeda is forcing them to rely on terrorists with less time and space to train," he said. "We see it in al Qaeda's gross distortion of Islam, their disrespect for human life, and their attempts to prey upon fear and hatred and prejudice."

Obama dismissed al Qaeda and its affiliates as "small men on the wrong side of history," but acknowledged that the threat they pose "will not go away soon."

"This is a different kind of war," he said. "There will be no simple moment of surrender to mark the journey's end. No armistice or banner headline."

The president said America's "strength and resilience" will counter people attempting to sow fear.

"Terrorists want to scare us," he said, but "New Yorkers go about their lives unafraid. Extremists want a war between America and Islam, but Muslims are a part of our national life, including those who serve in our Army. Adversaries want to divide us, but

Question: What is Obama's challenge for Afghanistan?

Question: Where will the US succeed?

Question: Where did Obama speak?

Question: West point had a guest speaker of whom?

Answer: providing governance that can sustain progress and serve the needs of its people.

Answer: Afghanistan."

Answer: West Point

Answer: President

Summary:
President Obama speaks at West Point's ninth wartime commencement .
Obama: Despite challenges, "we will succeed in Afghanistan"
World fight against al Qaeda "necessary and just"
Obama hails West Point milestone; two top cadets both female .


(CNN) -- President Obama took his renewed jobs push beyond the Washington beltway again Tuesday, heading to the politically critical state of New Hampshire for a town hall meeting.

The president used the event to spotlight his call for a $30 billion investment in a new small-business lending fund.

Obama's initiative would recycle $30 billion of the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program funds into a government lending program offering cheap capital to community banks that boost their small-business lending this year.

This measure will help ensure "small businesses are once again the engine of job growth in America," Obama said in the city of Nashua. It's "absolutely critical that Congress acts" to help pass this and other job creation legislation.

While credit conditions for large businesses have improved over the past year, small companies are still widely reporting problems finding the capital they need to fund their operations.

Since small businesses employ about half of American workers, policymakers worry that the ongoing credit crunch they face is contributing to the nation's high rate of job losses.

Under Obama's plan, banks with assets of less than $10 billion would be able to borrow money from the Treasury at a dividend rate as low as 1 percent if they use the cash to make more small-business loans this year than they did in 2009.

Obama's visit to New Hampshire, several political analysts said, was part of the White House's ongoing effort to recapture sorely needed political momentum. The state, which is home to the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, is considered in many ways to be a political bellwether for an administration struggling to maintain the support of independent voters.

More than 40 percent of the state's voters were registered as independents as of last November, according to the New Hampshire secretary of state's office.

Obama easily carried the state in the 2008 general election, but a slight plurality of New Hampshire voters disapproved of his job performance in a December 2009 American Research Group survey.

Tuesday's trip was Obama's second visit to New Hampshire since becoming president. While the town hall participants gave his small-business proposal a warm reception, they also raised questions about a series of other issues, including education, energy independence, government transparency and health care reform.

"We're in the red zone. We've got to punch it through," Obama said about the stalled health care legislation. "I do not quit. We are going to get that done." Obama said supporters of the legislation "have to move methodically and [ensure] the American people understand exactly what's in the bill."

Efforts to pass a comprehensive reform bill have been frozen since Massachusetts GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown won the seat previously held by Ted Kennedy, who died last August. Brown's victory stripped Democrats of their 60-seat Senate supermajority and gave Republicans enough votes to block most bills.

CNN's Catherine Clifford and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

Question: What would be lent to community banks?

Question: Who carried New Hampshire in the 2008 election?

Question: What would the TARP money do?

Question: What state did Obama carry in 2008?

Question: Who gave a warm reception to the plan?

Answer: $30 billion of the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program funds

Answer: Obama

Answer: a government lending program offering cheap capital to community banks

Answer: New Hampshire

Answer: town hall participants

Summary:
NEW: Town hall participants give warm reception to small-business lending fund plan .
NEW: They also ask about education, energy, government openness, health care .
Plan would lend TARP money to community banks that boost small-business loans .
Obama carried New Hampshire in 2008 general election, but support may be slipping .


(CNN) -- President Obama visits Mexico with many issues on the table, but reinstating the ban on assault weapons in the U.S. isn't likely to be one on which the two countries can reach agreement.

Mexican federal police officers this week display an arsenal seized near the U.S. border.

Mexican officials say criminals use assault weapons from the U.S. in the violent border region.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the U.S., say reinstating the ban would stop the deadly flow of weapons across the border.

Under the Clinton administration in 1994, Congress banned possession of 19 military-style assault weapons. The ban was allowed to expire 10 years later during the Bush administration.

Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that Obama would like to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons, noting, "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month that as a senator, she supported a measure to reinstate it.

And the urban policy section of the White House Web site says Obama and Vice President Joe Biden "support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

Obama still supports reinstating the ban, as he did during the presidential campaign, but there are no plans to reintroduce it anytime soon, according to an administration official.

Obama thinks more can be done to stop the illegal flow of weapons to Mexico within existing laws, the official said, noting that the president has taken steps to deploy more law enforcement to curb the illegal flows of drugs, weapons and cash in both directions across the border.

The administration is unaware of any broad-based efforts in Congress to reinstate the ban, the official said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told CBS on Thursday that reinstating the ban "simply is not part of the plan that we're talking about here."  Watch what Napolitano says about drug violence »

The Obama administration says the U.S. shares responsibility for the situation in Mexico, but as far as the ban goes, "there's a lot on our plate," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.  Watch what's on the table for Obama's trip to Mexico »

Gun rights advocates stress that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms without restriction. Gun control supporters interpret the amendment to mean that states shall keep militias but that an individual's right to own firearms may be restricted.

Those who support the assault weapons ban as a way to curb violence cite figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that say American gun sellers supply the Mexican drug cartels with 95 percent to 100 percent of their guns.

But others say that claim cannot be substantiated -- and argue that less that 20 percent of weapons used in crimes in Mexico are traced to the U.S.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association of America, says U.S. rights are not the cause of Mexico's wrongs.

In a commentary on CNN.com, LaPierre wrote that to believe U.S. freedoms are fueling the violence "you have to believe these butchers and beheaders break every Mexican law they want except Mexican gun laws, which they honor -- while they break American gun laws."

"Everything Mexico's murderous thugs are doing is already illegal. At issue is not the absence of law, but the absence of political will to enforce the laws that both nations already possess," he wrote.

On the other side, however, there are those who say loopholes in America's gun laws fuel violence in both Mexico and the United States.

"We need to realize that the Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves here because our gun laws have loopholes so large that criminals and gun traffickers can easily drive gun-laden trucks through them," former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, wrote in a commentary for CNN.com.

"We need to prevent Mexican criminals and the traffickers who supply them from buying guns by changing our gun laws and strengthening U.S. law

Question: Which US ban could curtail flow of weapons into Mexico?

Question: what did the officials say

Question: When was the ban originally instituted?

Question: what did mexico say

Question: Who has no immediate plans to reinstate ban?

Question: what weapons are banned?

Question: when was the ban

Question: When was the ban instituted?

Question: who will obama meet

Question: who banned assault weapons?

Question: What may the U.S. do with assault weapons?

Answer: on assault

Answer: criminals use assault weapons from the U.S. in the violent border region.

Answer: 1994,

Answer: criminals use assault weapons from the U.S. in the violent border region.

Answer: Obama

Answer: assault

Answer: Under the Clinton administration in 1994,

Answer: 1994,

Answer: Mexican President Felipe Calderon

Answer: Congress

Answer: reinstating the ban on

Summary:
Mexico: U.S. ban on assault weapons would curtail flow of weapons into country .
Ban instituted in 1994 during Clinton era and expired 10 years later .
President Obama has no immediate plans to try to reinstate ban, official says .
Obama meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City .


(CNN) -- President Obama's address to Congress was full of lofty promises to make unprecedented investments in government programs, even as he aims to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. President Obama on Tuesday outlined an ambitious agenda to help revive the economy. But it takes more than a proposal to bring about real change. Will Obama be able to meet his goals? CNN political analyst David Gergen says the answer will be "one of the greatest political dramas of our time." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the budget Obama sends to Capitol Hill Thursday will help show how the president plans to tackle his ambitious agenda. Here's a look at some of Obama's goals, and what experts are saying about them. Economy Promise: "To ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system." Promise: "I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office." Promise: "My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time, but we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." Analysis: Democratic strategist Lisa Caputo said so far, Obama is taking the right steps to revive the economy, but the country needs to see his plans put into action. He's already passed a massive stimulus bill, and he has a housing bill and a banking regulatory reform bill in the works. "He's doing all the right things. Hopefully he'll come forth with a balanced budget. ... He's saying all of the right things. He's got to do them," she said. Republican strategist and CNN contributor Ed Rollins pointed out that what Obama did was put forth proposals, not an action plan. "This was a speech about aspirations. There was not a strategy or the details. They may come later, but it's an overly ambitious program, and if he can accomplish just the financial part of it, he'll move the country forward," he said. The success of Obama's budget goals will fall heavily on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rollins said. "Can she control her members? The last two years the Congress has controlled the spending, it's been a Democrat Congress. It's still a Democrat Congress and will be for the foreseeable future. There's a lot of pet projects these people want, there's a lot of entitlements that people aren't willing to cut," he said. Larry Winget, a personal finance expert, said he agrees with everything that Obama said needs to be done, but said he doesn't agree that the country can borrow or spend its way out of debt. "If you came to me and said, 'I'm in a financial crisis, I've screwed up everything based on all of my bad decisions, what should I do?' the last thing in the world I would tell you is to go borrow more money or go try to spend something that -- money you don't have on something you don't need," he said. Winget said instead, the country should work its way out of debt. "The practical thing would be to put more money in the hands of people, which would always go back to, we need to give bigger ... tax cuts," he said. Education Promise: "By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That is a goal we can meet." Promise: "It will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education, from the day they are born to the day they begin a career. That is a promise we have to make to the children of America.

Question: What goals did the president set?

Question: When did Obama promise the deficit would be halved?

Question: who set high goals for economy, energy, education and health care?

Question: By when did Obama promise a deficit cut?

Question: who promises to halve the deficit by 2013?

Answer: Promise: "My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time, but we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

Answer: by the end of his first term.

Answer: Obama's

Answer: the end of his first term.

Answer: President

Summary:
President Obama promises to halve deficit by 2013 .
Experts support Obama's proposals, but want details on the action plan .
Obama sets high goals for economy, energy, education, health care .
CNN contributor Roland Martin likens Obama to Kanye West .


(CNN) -- President Obama's decision to grant some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees is seen by some as his attempt to extend an olive branch to the gay and lesbian community, but critics say it's "too little, too late." Some critics say President Obama has let the gay community down. "It seems to me at least to be a nice gesture, but a disappointment," said Richard Kim, a senior editor at The Nation magazine. The memorandum Obama signed Wednesday is not expected to grant health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners, as that is prohibited under the Defense of Marriage Act. "It will absolutely be seen as something good -- but I think, for example, it not including full health insurance -- that is going to put a real microscope on that question. You know, why not?" Kim said, adding that the memo applies only to federal employees, so most people will not be affected by it. Charles Moran, the spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, said the lack of full benefits in Thursday's memorandum shows a lack of commitment to the gay community. "That's the part that just shows that the Obama administration really isn't serious about their promises to the gay and lesbian community. Things like the health benefits, things like retirement benefits and coverage for spouses. These are the core issues," Moran said. "Why start the marathon if you're not serious about ending the race?" he added. White House officials involved in discussions with gay-rights advocates say that Obama favors extending full health care benefits to same-sex couples but that will take legislation to accomplish. Moran said Obama has had multiple opportunities to fulfill his promises to the gay and lesbian community -- including by repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and standing against the Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. "Here we are, several months after he's been inaugurated, and we've gotten basically nothing. So it is too little, too late," Moran said. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama will keep his word. "[Extending benefits to same-sex couples] is a matter of fairness. The president is committed to ensuring that fairness as well as working on and fulfilling other promises that he has made in the campaign around things like 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Gibbs said. The president has faced sharp criticism over the Justice Department's filing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which opposes same-sex marriage. The act used the government's interest in opposing incestuous marriages to support its position against same-sex marriage. Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank said the Obama administration made a "big mistake" and is calling on the president to clearly explain his views on the matter. "The wording they used was inappropriate," the Massachusetts Democrat told the Boston Herald in an interview published in the paper's Wednesday edition. Many gay activists have called on Frank and other gay members of Congress to speak out against the recent Department of Justice brief. The rancor threatens to disrupt a big Democratic National Committee gay fundraiser in Washington next week. Vice President Biden is the guest at next Thursday's DNC's LBGT Leadership Council 10th Annual Dinner in Washington. Critics are calling for Frank and other gay congressional leaders to boycott the dinner, for which tickets go for $1,000 to $30,000 a plate. Activist David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle, two well-known gay rights advocates, announced that they were pulling out, citing disappointment with the Defense of Marriage Act brief. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on Obama and same-sex marriage The president also rankled gay advocates before his inauguration when he named megachurch pastor the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing-in. Warren, in an interview with Belief.net, likened homosexuality to bestiality and incest. He also supported California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in

Question: Which benefits where not extended to same sex partners

Question: What does Obama favour?

Question: What does Kim say?

Question: Is legislation needed?

Question: what does white house offical say Obama favours

Question: The editor of the Nations said what

Answer: health and retirement

Answer: extending full health care benefits to same-sex couples

Answer: "It seems to me at least to be a nice gesture, but a disappointment,"

Answer: that will take

Answer: extending full health care benefits to same-sex couples

Answer: "It seems to me at least to be a nice gesture, but a disappointment,"

Summary:
NEW: White House officials: Obama favors full benefits, but legislation is needed .
Obama expands some benefits to same-sex partners, but not health care .
"Nice gesture, but a disappointment," says Richard Kim, senior editor of The Nation .
Some critics show discontent by pulling out of DNC gay fundraising dinner .


(CNN) -- President Obama's economic stimulus plan cleared its first hurdle, but it was hardly the bipartisan victory he hoped for -- not a single House Republican broke ranks to support it. The stimulus bill now moves to the Senate, where GOP members want less spending and more tax cuts. In fact, 11 Democrats also voted against the $819 billion package. But a win is a win, and so the White House strategy is to take the long view: Maybe the Senate will take out more of the controversial pork projects and tweak the tax cuts to win over more Republicans. The full Senate will vote on its version next week. Should the Senate and House pass different versions, the two bills would have to be conferenced together. Then both chambers would have to vote on the new conference version in the coming weeks.  Watch what's next for the stimulus » "I do think it is so important that we slow this bill down in order to do it right," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. Senate GOP sources report that there is a "real split" in the GOP caucus about the best way to proceed in the wake of Wednesday's vote in the House. The sources say Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, wants a "smaller, narrower" bill. Another group of Republicans including Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is working to craft a larger package that would include more infrastructure spending. Generally, the sources say, the party is looking for more concessions from the White House on spending. The Senate has already made some changes in its version of the bill, which is approaching $900 billion. The Senate Finance Committee added about $70 billion to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was intended to place a tax on the wealthy but now hits many middle class families. The Senate bill adds more direct money for seniors, with a plan to send $300 checks to social security recipients and disabled veterans. Smaller changes in the Senate version include $108 million to extend worker retraining programs and a provision to block any taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits. Aides say housing relief is also going to be a big issue for some Republican senators. The main concerns are similar to those of their House counterparts. They want more tax cuts and less spending. "We look forward to offering amendments to improve this critical legislation and move it back to the package President Obama originally proposed -- 40 percent tax relief, no wasteful spending and a bipartisan approach," McConnell said. Obama has made it clear that he's not willing to budge on some of the big ticket items, like how the tax cuts are structured. The version passed in the House is two-thirds spending and one-third tax cuts. Much of the $550 billion in spending is divided among these areas: $142 billion for education, $111 billion for health care, $90 billion for infrastructure, $72 billion for aid and benefits, $54 billion for energy, $16 billion for science and technology and $13 billion for housing. Those opposed to the bill say it includes too much wasteful spending, pointing to things like $335 million in funding for education on sexually transmitted diseases and $650 million for digital TV coupons.  Watch why some say there's too much pork » A growing number of Republicans and Democrats say measures such as those don't create jobs. The Democratic rationale is that healthier Americans will be more productive. And on the millions for digital television coupons, the hope is that money will go to new call centers explaining how the technology works. "There's something in there for literally every interest. It's a pent-up wish list of spending programs that many around here have wanted to implement for a really long time," said Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota. Congressional leaders did drop some of the controversial provisions, like one that provided $200 million worth of contraceptives to low-income families

Question: Who wants more tax cuts and less spending?

Question: What party did not support the stimulus bill?

Question: Who did not support the stimulus bill?

Question: What passed in the House?

Question: What exactly do GOP senators want?

Question: What are some of these "big ticket items" Obama refers to?

Question: Who has made a push for bipartisan support?

Question: What did GOP senators want more of?

Question: What do GOP senators want?

Answer: GOP members

Answer: Republican

Answer: House Republican

Answer: Obama's economic stimulus plan

Answer: less spending and more tax cuts.

Answer: how the tax cuts are structured.

Answer: President Obama

Answer: tax cuts.

Answer: less spending and more tax cuts.

Summary:
Stimulus bill passed in the House with no support from Republicans .
GOP senators want more tax cuts, less spending .
President Obama has made a push for bipartisan support .
Obama made it clear that he's not willing to budge on some big ticket items .


(CNN) -- President Obama's foreign policy agenda may have "run out of steam" and he must now take risks and provide effective leadership, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said Friday.

In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Brzezinski said Obama's foreign policy agenda is suffering from gridlock in Washington.

"I have the feeling that because of domestic problems, he has run out of steam, and I don't know really how determined he is to resume what he started doing so well, which is to engage the world constructively," Brzezinski said.

Brzezinski, who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the only way to break the stalemate is for Obama to take the lead.

The president can show leadership, he said, by "persuasively going to the country directly, mobilizing the support, taking on some difficult foreign challenge, and prevailing."

Brzezinski cited Iran as an example of key challenges Obama ought to tackle.

Obama should not "abandon it prematurely," he said, noting the complexities of the internal Iranian situation could give the United States "room for maneuver, and perhaps some basis for expecting an eventual partial accommodation."

Brzezinski also cited the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a key challenge because it "revolutionizes, radicalizes the Middle East, and maximizes the number of enemies the United States has."

Asked how he would grade the Obama administration's performance on Iran and the Middle East, he said, "Well, rhetorically, A; in terms of performance, B, B-minus."

Despite the United States' foreign policy problems, Brzezinski said, the nation has the resources to deal with new global security threats in cyberspace, outer space and on the high seas.

Brzezinski also commented on the newly published 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a legislatively mandated review of the U.S. Department of Defense strategy and priorities.

The review is meant "to assess the threats and challenges that the nation faces," and to "rebalance the department's strategies, capabilities and forces to address today's conflicts and tomorrow's threats," according to the Department of Defense.

Brzezinski warned even though the United States has highly sophisticated technology, it also has to be effective in global diplomacy, adding, "We have neglected that in the course of the last decade."

"I think we have to redefine the nature of the enemy," Brzezinski said, "the global security context in which we find ourselves is now fundamentally different."

Brzezinski, national security adviser during the Carter administration between 1977 and 1981, noted how the new threats differ from those of the Cold War.

"When I was in the White House, the threat was concentrated and very lethal," he said. "You know, the Soviet Union, in case of a central war with the United States, could kill roughly 80 million Americans in six hours."

Today, Brzezinski said, the United States has "a lot of threats, ranging from terrorists to rogue states to unpredictable events. And that makes the defense issue more complex, even though it is somewhat rather less lethal."

He cited the example of cyberattacks.

"Are these hackers, for example, from China working for the Chinese government or are they working for some private business? What are their motives?"

He said it is vital for the United States to have the capability not only to stop hacking, but to retaliate as well.

Question:
what can stop stalemate
what is given an A
who is brzezinski
what should obama tackle

Answer: is for Obama to take the lead.

Answer: the Obama administration's performance on Iran and the Middle East,

Answer: former U.S. National Security Adviser

Answer: Iran

Summary:
President can stop stalemate by taking risks, showing leadership, Zbigniew Brzezinski says .
Brzezinski cites Iran, Israeli-Palestinian conflict as key challenges Obama should tackle .
On Iran, Middle East, Brzezinski gives administration "rhetorically, A... performance, B, B-minus"
Compared to Cold War era, U.S. faces broader range of threats, he says .


(CNN) -- President Obama's friendly interactions with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has set off a wave of controversy, but analysts said the leaders' next steps will show if relations have truly improved or if Obama was overstepping boundaries. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez presents a book to President Obama at the Summit of the Americas. Chavez and Obama were both at the Summit of the Americas, which ended Sunday in Trinidad and Tobago. On the first day, Obama reached out his hand to Chavez and was seen smiling and patting the Venezuelan leader on the shoulder as the two shook hands. "With this same hand I greeted Bush eight years ago, I want to be your friend," Chavez said, his office reported. On the second day, as cameras jockeyed for position, Chavez got up and gave Obama a book, "The Open Veins of Latin America," which documents centuries of American abuse in the region. After the exchange, the book skyrocketed to become one of Amazon's best-sellers. Obama joked about the move at a news conference Sunday, saying while he had meetings with all the leaders involved, "I think it's just that President Chavez is better at positioning the cameras." "And in all these conversations, here's what I emphasized, that we're not going to agree on every issue, but that, as long as we are respectful of democratic processes, as long as we're respectful of principles of sovereignty for all nations, that we can find areas where we can work in common," he said. Relations between the United States and Venezuela grew progressively worse under the presidencies of Chavez and George W. Bush. Chavez -- whose anti-U.S. rhetoric has included calling Bush the "devil" -- announced Saturday he is considering naming an ambassador to the United States, signaling a potential shift in the tense relations between the two nations. Chavez expelled the American ambassador in September, prompting the United States to expel Venezuela's ambassador. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, told CNN on Sunday it was "irresponsible" for Obama to have been seen "laughing and joking" with Chavez. "This is a person who is one of the most anti-American leaders in the entire world," Ensign said on "State of the Union." "He is a brutal dictator, and human rights violations are very, very prevalent in Venezuela. And you have to be careful."  Watch criticism of the meeting » Republican Newt Gingrich joined the criticism Monday, saying enemies of the United States will use Obama's friendly encounter with Chavez as propaganda. "Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and being with the president as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he is acceptable," the former House leader said on NBC's "Today" show. But Democrats such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota downplayed the moment, saying, "All the president did was shake his hand like George Bush [did]." Obama's senior adviser said Sunday the administration isn't worried about how the gesture is perceived. "I'm not concerned about the message that it sends. I'm concerned about what flows from it. Words and handshakes are nice, but they're not enough," David Axelrod said on CBS' "Face the Nation." Stephen Hayes, a CNN contributor and writer for the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, said it's not the handshake that irks Republicans but that Obama "seemed to actually be enjoying it." "Conservatives at least were looking for something from the president who would have said, 'Hey, enough is enough, we want to go forward. We want to put the arguments of the past in the past, but you've got to own up to the arguments you've made,' " Hayes said Monday on CNN. Jennifer McCoy, director of the Carter Center's Americas Program, said Obama was trying to send a message that he wants to start a new beginning with Latin America. "

Question:
Who shouldn't seem too friendly?
What does Obama say?
what was irresponsible?
who shook hands at summit?

Answer: President Obama

Answer: "I think it's just that President Chavez is better at positioning the cameras."

Answer: for Obama to have been seen "laughing and joking" with Chavez.

Answer: Obama

Summary:
President Obama, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez shake hands at summit .
GOP senator: It's "irresponsible" to be seen "laughing and joking" with Chavez .
It's OK to shake hands, but Obama shouldn't seem too friendly, CNN analyst says .
Responding to critics, Obama says, "I don't worry about the politics"


(CNN) -- President Obama's pledge to conquer cancer "in our time" is a great goal, but one of America's top cancer experts isn't sure he'd use the word "cure."

Despite chemotherapy, some breast cancers recur, like a "smoldering fire that flares up," Dr. Otis Brawley said.

"The idea of [calling for] a cure does scare me a little bit because, I don't think that's realistic in some cancers," says Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. "But I like the general overall idea, and I'm thrilled about the focus on health."

Obama's first proposed budget includes $6 billion for cancer research by the National Institutes of Health. That's on top of the additional $10 billion provided by the stimulus package for 2009 and 2010.

But some cancer specialists say that rather than finding a cure, a more realistic scenario is that certain cancers that are fatal today will move into the realm of chronic illnesses.

By chronic disease, doctors mean "the way we think of diabetes or heart disease as chronic diseases, where people could live in peaceful coexistence with cancer, as opposed to the cancer continuing to advance," said Brawley, who also is CNNhealth.com's conditions expert.

Dr. Tony Reid, an oncologist and director of clinical trials at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, shares this view. He sees the long-term management of certain cancers as chronic illness as a "primary intermediate step" as researchers work towards cures.

Prevention efforts, including discouraging smoking, obesity, and environmental hazards, are also important components of the cure, Dr. Andreas Ullrich, medical officer in cancer control at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

How long it will actually take to cure cancer is anyone's guess, but Obama's initiative is encouraging, he said.

"We need this hope," Ullrich said. "We need to invest in our efforts in research, in basic research, and also in social science to understand why people behave in a risky way, and how to prevent people from exposing themselves to cancer risk," he said.

Given that "cancer" encompasses more than 200 diseases, it makes sense that different varieties would require different approaches for saving the lives of their victims.

From Brawley's perspective, a cure happens when the disease has gone away and it's not likely to come back, and the person is likely to grow old and die from something totally unrelated.

Reid put it in terms of years of survival -- with pancreatic cancer, which normally takes lives within six months of diagnosis, you're probably cured if you're still alive five years after surgery, he said. But breast cancer can come back even after 10 years, he said.

About 11 million people living in the United States had a history of some form of cancer as of 2005, according to the latest statistics from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database.

There has been progress, however. For American men, the risk of death for cancer is 20 percent lower than it was 20 years ago, Brawley said.

Rates of new cancer diagnoses and deaths for U.S. men and women simultaneously fell for the first time since reporting began in 1998, according to a report published in November in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.  See a map of lung cancer in the U.S. from this report »

Already there are cancers that respond well to drugs for several years. Patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors tend to tolerate the drugs well, for example, Reid said.

"I have many patients who will come back and say, 'Except for the fact that you tell me I have cancer, I don't know it,' " he said.

But after a while, these patients'  cancer cells mutate and evolve to become resistant to the drugs, finding ways around almost any drug, Reid said.

Some breast cancer patients take medications for 10 years to prevent

Question: where was the money going

Question: What will  happen to some cancers?

Question: How much is the budget?

Question: How much is included for cancer research?

Answer: cancer research

Answer: recur,

Answer: additional $10 billion

Answer: $6 billion

Summary:
President Obama's proposed budget includes $6 billion for cancer research .
Experts: Some cancers that are fatal today will become like chronic diseases .
Already there are cancers that respond well to drugs for several years .


(CNN) -- President Obama's proposed spending freeze could help him recapture the favor of centrist voters, but critics blast the move as nothing more than political posturing.

The president is expected to call for a partial, three-year freeze on discretionary spending in his State of the Union address Wednesday, according to two senior administration officials. The cuts, which Obama will say would save $250 billion, would not apply to national security spending and would not affect major entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

The proposal comes as the president's poll numbers dip and concerns about the economy and the federal deficit flare.

It also comes after a shocking election loss for Democrats in Massachusetts, which many have interpreted as an expression of voter frustration with the way Washington is handling the economy.

"I applaud [Obama] for attempting to have some fiscal restraint," Republican strategist Ed Rollins said. "But at the end of the day, he's got to make sure the Democrats are disciplined and they don't have big spending programs alongside of this."

Under Obama's plan, all federal discretionary spending would be frozen at its current level of $447 billion per year. Individual federal agencies would have the power to give some programs increases, while cutting money elsewhere.

Both chambers of Congress would have to approve the freeze when they take up the president's budget for fiscal year 2011, which starts in October. Obama will send his budget plan to Congress after the State of the Union.

Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, said Obama's move doesn't make much sense, following a year of unprecedented government spending and a $787 billion stimulus package.

"A little bit of disarray, it seems. Last year, just spend, throw everything into a stimulus package ... and then this year, just across-the-board freeze. Frankly, the government has to make better choices and better plans than throwing things into a big pot in one year and then freezing across the board the next year," he said.

Obama dismissed the idea of an across-the-board spending freeze during a presidential debate in October 2008.

"It sounds good. It's proposed periodically. It doesn't happen," then-candidate Obama said.

"In fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel because there are some programs that don't work at all. There are some that are underfunded. I want to make sure we're focused on the programs that work."

Republican reaction to Obama's proposal was split, with some senior GOP aides saying it is something they could support, and others saying it did not go nearly far enough.

"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That's the bottom line."

The senior administration officials acknowledged that discretionary spending is only about one-sixth of the entire federal budget, but said the White House believes that cuts need to start somewhere.

The move is Obama's latest step down a path to a more populist message, aimed at reassuring Americans nervous about the slow pace of the economic recovery. The president on Monday proposed nearly doubling the child care tax credit for middle-class families. Obama is expected to talk about efforts to create more jobs and spur the economy in his speech Wednesday.

iReport: Deliver your State of the Union address

The White House has put a greater emphasis on the economy in the days since Democrats lost their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate. Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election last week to serve the remainder of the late Ted Kennedy's Senate term. Brown capitalized on voter frustrations and captured the independent vote in Massachusetts, a Democratic stronghold.

"I think that

Question: What is Obama calling for?

Question: what was cnn coverage?

Question: Who is to call for partial freeze on discretionary spending?

Question: What  could help put Obama back in the political center?

Question: what would help obama to get power again?

Question: What could help out Obama?

Answer: a partial, three-year freeze on discretionary spending

Answer: spending freeze

Answer: Obama's

Answer: spending freeze

Answer: spending freeze

Answer: proposed spending freeze

Summary:
Obama to call for partial freeze on discretionary spending .
Freeze could help put Obama back in the political center .
Some Republicans say it doesn't do enough; some Dems say it goes too far .
Watch coverage Wednesday night at 7:30 on CNN.com and 8 on CNN TV .


(CNN) -- President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and other top Democrats are heading back to school Tuesday, in hopes of convincing first-time voters from the 2008 election to vote again in 2010.

The president is scheduled to headline a Democratic party rally at the University of Wisconsin in Madison while the vice president is the main attraction at a similar event at Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pennsylvania.

The idea is to fire up "surge" voters and motivate them to go to the polls again in this November's midterm elections. According to national exit polls from 2008, 11 percent of people who cast ballots in the presidential contest said they were first time voters, and seven out of 10 of those new voters said they backed Obama in the election. Many of those people were young voters, and exit polls indicated that two-thirds of people age 18-29 voted for Obama.

In advance to Tuesday's rallies, the president held a conference call with college and university journalists.

"You can't sit it out. You can't suddenly just check in once every 10 years or so, on an exciting presidential election, and then not pay attention during big mid-term elections where we've got a real big choice between Democrats and Republicans," Obama said.

There's no mistake in the locations for the Obama and Biden rallies. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the Democrats face tough odds in holding onto open Senate seats and governorships. Polls also indicate that Republicans have a good chance of grabbing back a bunch of House seats.

Also on the road Tuesday: Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, at a rally at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware; Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland; Labor Secretary Hilda Solis at California State University in Los Angeles; and United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk at North Carolina Central University in Durham, North Carolina.

Obama's speech at the University of Wisconsin is the first in what Democratic Party officials say will be a series of "Moving America Forward" events by the president over the next couple of weeks.

Question: What percent of voters were first timers in 2008?

Question: where do the democrats face tough odds

Question: Which states are going to be tough for democrats?

Question: Where is the rally being held?

Question: Democrates face tought odds in where

Question: where will obama headline a rally

Question: what percent were first timers casting ballots

Question: what will Obama do in Madison

Answer: 11

Answer: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,

Answer: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,

Answer: University of Wisconsin in Madison

Answer: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,

Answer: University of Wisconsin in Madison

Answer: 11

Answer: speech at the University of Wisconsin

Summary:
Obama will headline a rally in Madison, Wisconsin .
11 percent of those who cast ballots in 2008 were first-timers .
Democrats face tough odds in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .


(CNN) -- President Obama, visiting CIA headquarters Monday, defended his decision to release Bush-era memos on interrogation tactics, saying the country will ultimately be stronger as a result. President Obama met with CIA workers and Director Leon Panetta, left, in Virginia on Monday. The president's remarks came in the wake of criticism from a former CIA chief and others that his decision compromised national security and encouraged terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Obama also met with CIA Director Leon Panetta, Deputy Director Stephen Kappes and other officials, and talked to employees about the importance of the agency's mission to national security. The president asserted that he had released the documents primarily because of the "exceptional circumstances that surrounded these memos, particularly the fact that so much of the information was [already] public. ... The covert nature of the information had been compromised."  Watch Obama talk about "exceptional circumstances" » Obama added that he ended the controversial interrogation techniques mentioned in the memos because the United States "is stronger and more secure" when it can deploy both power and the "power of our values, including the rule of law." "What makes the United States special ... is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy, even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it's expedient to do so," he said.  Watch Obama talk about the importance of values » Although abiding by the rule of law can make battling groups such as al Qaeda more difficult, he added, it is ultimately why "we'll defeat our enemies. We're on the better side of history." Panetta, while introducing the president, promised that the CIA would abide by the president's order barring controversial enhanced interrogation techniques. He also agreed that it was possible to protect the country and its values at the same time. Obama's visit to the CIA's Langley, Virginia, headquarters came a day after former CIA Director Michael Hayden said the decision to release the four memos undermined the work the agency is doing. Hayden, President George W. Bush's CIA director from 2006 to 2009, said the release of the memos emboldens terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. "What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information," Hayden said on "Fox News Sunday." "By taking techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine, more difficult for CIA officers to defend the nation." He added, "if you look at what this really comprises, if you look at the documents that have been made public, it says 'top secret' at the top. The definition of top secret is information which, if revealed, would cause grave harm to U.S. security." Obama said last week that withholding the memos "would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time." "This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States," he said in a statement. The memos include details on terrorist suspect interrogations such as waterboarding, a technique used to simulate drowning. Obama has called the method torture. One memo showed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects. The administration also has come under criticism from human rights organizations after announcing that CIA officials would not be prosecuted for past waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics.  Watch for details on the interrogation techniques » Obama believes "that's not the place that we go," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "It's not a time to use our energy ... looking back [with] any sense of anger and retribution." Attorney

Question: Who thinks we can protect the country?

Question: Who is emboldening terrorist groups?

Question: Who did he tell "We're on the better side of history,"?

Question: What is possible to protect?

Answer: Panetta,

Answer: release of the memos

Answer: Deputy Director Stephen Kappes and other officials,

Answer: the country and its values

Summary:
Release has been criticized as damaging to national security .
"We're on the better side of history," he tells CIA workers .
CIA chief says it's possible to protect country, values at same time .
Ex-CIA chief under Bush says Obama emboldening terrorist groups .


(CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama spoke with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday about the violence in Gaza, which has left as many as 225 people dead, two transition aides told CNN. Barack Obama's approach to the Middle East as president will be the subject of much scrutiny. "The president-elect appreciated the call and the information from Secretary Rice," one aide said, adding that Obama initiated the eight-minute phone call. "He will continue to closely monitor these and other global events." Israeli airstrikes pounded targets in Hamas-ruled Gaza on Saturday and continued into the night, retaliating against Palestinian militants who have been escalating rocket attacks against southern Israel. The fighting ignited eight days after a six-month Egypt-brokered cease-fire between Hamas and Israel expired. Obama has pledged to make Middle East peace a priority from the beginning of his presidency. Arabs are calling for a more even-handed approach than the Bush administration, but Israel is expecting Obama to stay true to the pro-Israel posture he showed during the campaign. But one analyst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cautioned against putting "dangerously high" expectations on the incoming administration. "I think the tone of American politics will change: You're going to get a serious effort on behalf of the new administration," said Aaron David Miller, a public policy scholar at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center and a former adviser to six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli relations. But, he told CNN, "the fact is that unless the Israelis and Palestinians are prepared -- which they're not right now -- to take the political decisions required to overcome the gaps and to sell an agreement to their respective constituents, there's not much a new president, no matter how bold or charismatic he may be, is going to be able to do about that." CNN's Ed Henry contributed to this report.

Question: Are Middle East events being closely monitored?

Question: What has Obama promised to make a priority?

Question: Who promised to make peace in the region a priority?

Question: How long was the phone call?

Question: How long was Obama's call?

Question: What did Obama say?

Question: What will Obama closely monitor?

Question: What has he promised to do?

Answer: "He will continue to closely monitor these and other global events."

Answer: Obama has pledged to make Middle East peace a priority

Answer: Obama

Answer: eight-minute

Answer: eight-minute

Answer: "He will continue to closely monitor these and other global events."

Answer: these and other global events."

Answer: make Middle East peace a priority from the beginning of his presidency.

Summary:
President-elect initiated eight-minute call with secretary of state .
Obama "will continue to closely monitor" Middle East events, aide says .
He has promised to make peace in the region a priority .


(CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama visited military personnel and their families enjoying Christmas dinner at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii Thursday during his holiday vacation. President-elect Obama shakes hands with troops having Christmas dinner at a military base in Hawaii. Obama went to Marine Corps Base Hawaii Kaneohe Bay on Oahu where he mingled with Marines and sailors. Obama and the troops also had a traditional dinner including turkey, roast beef, ham and trimmings. Obama, dressed casually in a blue polo shirt and dark khaki trousers, chatted casually, shook hands and posed for photos with men and women in the dining hall, which had been decorated with Christmas trees and Santa figurines. Shortly before Obama entered the room, a Marine shouted to the crowd scattered across 25 tables, "You need to take you seats, the president-elect is going to be coming." Obama, who spent about an hour at the Marine base, worked his way around the room, table by table. "Just wanted to say, 'Hi, hey guys,'" Obama said at one point while reporters were allowed in the room. "Hey guys, Merry Christmas," he said to another group. Obama also highlighted the service of the country's military men and women now overseas in a holiday message to be broadcast on radio this Saturday. "As we celebrate this joyous time of year, our thoughts turn to the brave men and women who serve our country far from home," he said in the message, which was posted online Wednesday. "Their extraordinary and selfless sacrifice is an inspiration to us all, and part of the unbroken line of heroism that has made our freedom and prosperity possible for over two centuries."   Watch Obama's holiday message » More than 140,000 soldiers are currently serving in Iraq, as well as roughly 30,000 in Afghanistan. In the broadcast message, Obama also called on Americans to "renew a sense of common purpose and shared citizenship." "These are also tough times for many Americans struggling in our sluggish economy," he said. "Now, more than ever, we must rededicate ourselves to the notion that we share a common destiny as Americans -- that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. ... We must all do our part to serve one another; to seek new ideas and new innovation; and to start a new chapter for our great country." Obama said that notion "will guide my administration in the New Year. If the American people come together and put their shoulder to the wheel of history, then I know that we can put our people back to work ... and reach the promise of a brighter day."

Question: What does obama call on americans to do

Question: What does Obama call for?

Question: What did Obama praise?

Question: Who did President-elect Barack Obama mingle with

Question: What did Obama do?

Question: What did Obama call on Americans to do?

Question: Who mingles with troops?

Answer: "renew a sense of common purpose and shared citizenship."

Answer: Americans to "renew a sense of common purpose and shared citizenship."

Answer: country's military

Answer: military personnel and their families

Answer: dinner at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii

Answer: "renew a sense of common purpose and shared citizenship."

Answer: Barack Obama

Summary:
President-elect Barack Obama mingles with troops in Hawaii on Christmas Day .
Obama praised country's military men and women in online message .
Obama calls on Americans to "renew a sense of common purpose"