WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama on Monday gathered together every confirmed member of his Cabinet for the first time as president and challenged them to cut $100 million in the next 90 days. President Obama meets Monday with his Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, right. Agencies will have to report how they saved on expenses at the end of the period. The federal government has "a confidence gap when it comes to the American people," Obama said at the White House. "We've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely." The edict is part of Obama's "commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending" and "reform the government," a senior administration official said. One potential Cabinet officer was missing from the meeting -- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary-designate. The Senate has not voted on whether to confirm Sebelius to the post. Obama made his savings request as the House of Representatives and Senate were returning from recess this week, ready to start reconciling their versions of the fiscal 2010 budget resolution. The president's budget request is $3.67 trillion.  Watch how the administration hopes to cut costs » In the context of the federal budget, $100 million in savings is a small amount, critics said. "Any amount of savings is obviously welcome," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said. "But [$100 million is] about the average amount we'll spend every single day just covering the interest on the stimulus package that we passed earlier this year." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that ordinary Americans nevertheless would appreciate the savings effort. "Only in Washington, D.C., is $100 million not a lot of money," Gibbs said. "It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans." The administration also contends the order signaled an important demonstration of fiscal responsibility. "None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problems," Obama said. "But taken together, they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about how government operates." The White House offered examples of how agencies already have started cost-cutting measures, including: CNN's Suzanne Malveaux contributed to the report.

Question: What will the agencies have to report on?

Question: Who did Obama meet with?

Question: How much in savings is a small amount?

Question: What does the agency have to report?

Question: What is the savings amount?

Question: With whom will Obama meet?

Question: What do they have to earn?

Question: What did President Obama say?

Answer: how they saved

Answer: his Cabinet,

Answer: $100 million

Answer: how they saved on expenses

Answer: $100 million

Answer: his Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates,

Answer: their trust.

Answer: "We've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."

Summary:
NEW: President Obama says, "We've got to earn [the public's] trust"
NEW: Obama meets with Cabinet to discuss how agencies can cuts costs .
Agencies will have to report how they saved on expenses after 90 days .
Critics say $100 million in savings is a small amount .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama on Tuesday left open the possibility of criminal prosecution for Bush administration officials who drew up the legal basis for interrogation techniques that many view as torture. President Obama says any congressional investigation should be conducted in a bipartisan fashion. Obama said it will be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether or not to prosecute the former officials. "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more a decision for the attorney general within the parameter of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said during a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah at the White House. "There's a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."  Watch as Obama says U.S. can be protected and live up to its ideals » The president added that any congressional "accounting of what took place" should be done "in a bipartisan fashion outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down ... entirely along party lines." It is important, he said, for the "American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage." Obama's remarks came five days after the administration released four Bush-era memos detailing the use of terror interrogations such as waterboarding, a technique used to simulate drowning. One memo showed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding -- which Obama has called torture -- at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects. Obama reiterated his belief that he did not think it is appropriate to prosecute those CIA officials and others who carried out the interrogations in question. "This has been a difficult chapter in our history and one of [my] tougher decisions," he added. The techniques listed in memos "reflected ... us losing our moral bearings." The president's apparent willingness to leave the door open to a prosecution of Bush officials seemed to contradict White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who indicated Sunday that the administration was opposed to such an action. Obama believes "that's not the place that we [should] go," Emanuel said on ABC's "This Week." "It's not a time to use our energy ... looking back [with] any sense of anger and retribution." On Monday, Obama asserted during a visit to CIA headquarters 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."

Question: What was in the memos that were released?

Question: Who does Obama believe shouldn't be prosecuted?

Question: What did the administration release?

Question: what were released?

Question: Who released Bush-era memos?

Question: who believes CIA officers shouldn't be prosecuted?

Question: who decides prosecution on interrogations?

Answer: detailing the use of terror interrogations

Answer: CIA officials and others

Answer: four Bush-era memos

Answer: four Bush-era memos detailing the use of terror interrogations such as waterboarding, a technique used to simulate drowning.

Answer: the administration

Answer: Obama

Answer: Attorney General Eric Holder

Summary:
President: It's up to attorney general to decide about prosecution on interrogations .
President Obama repeats belief that CIA officers shouldn't be prosecuted .
"I do worry about this getting so politicized," president says .
Administration has released Bush-era memos detailing use of terror interrogations .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama reached out to citizens of the world Tuesday, saying in an op-ed piece that ran in 31 newspapers around the globe that there is an urgent need for worldwide economic cooperation.

President Obama will discuss the economic downturn with other world leaders next week at the Group of 20 meeting.

Obama's move comes ahead of next week's Group of 20 meeting in London, England, in which leaders of the world's richest nations will discuss the global economic downturn.

"My message is clear," Obama wrote. "The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains."

The president is scheduled to hold his second prime-time news conference at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday.

In the op-ed, Obama spoke about the upcoming G-20 meeting, saying that world leaders have to work together.  Watch as the White House press secretary outlines Obama's economic strategy »

"We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation," Obama said. "Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again."

The president also pointed out that although the United States is separated by two oceans from most of the rest of the world, a global economy renders those geographic distinctions moot.

"Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy," Obama said. "There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond."

Next week's G-20 summit will be Obama's first meeting as president with many of the world's leaders. He will meet many of the Western Hemisphere's leaders at the Fifth Summit of the Americas next month in Trinidad and Tobago.

Question: What is the us economy linked to?

Question: Who is set to hold prime-time news conference Tuesday night?

Question: What did Obama urge nations to do?

Question: Where are the newpapers located?

Question: What will Obama do on Tuesday?

Question: Who urges nations to work together?

Answer: global economy,"

Answer: president

Answer: worldwide economic cooperation.

Answer: around the globe

Answer: hold his second prime-time news conference

Answer: President Obama

Summary:
President Obama urges nations to work together ahead of Group of 20 meeting .
Obama's op-ed piece runs in 31 newspapers worldwide .
President set to hold prime-time news conference Tuesday night .
Obama: U.S. economy's success is "inextricably linked to the global economy"


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama said Friday he spoke with the police officer who arrested a Harvard professor and told the officer he did not mean to malign the Cambridge Police Department when he said police acted stupidly. President Obama on Friday explains to reporters the details of a phone conservation with Sgt. James Crowley. The president acknowledged that his words "helped to contribute to ratcheting" up the situation when he criticized the manner in which Sgt. James Crowley arrested professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. "I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically," Obama told reporters. "I could have calibrated those words differently, and I told this to Sgt. Crowley."  Watch Obama describe talk » Obama spoke about two hours after police unions in Massachusetts called on him to apologize. He did not apologize for his remark but repeated that he believed his choice of words was unfortunate. He reiterated his assertion that he believes police overreacted, but said Gates "probably overreacted as well." "My sense is you have got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved," he said. Obama also spoke briefly with the arrested professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., who is a friend of the president, the White House reported. He and Gates had a "positive discussion" about his call to Crowley on Friday afternoon, the White House said. Obama also invited Gates "to join him with Sgt. Crowley at the White House in the near future." In an e-mail Friday to CNN's Don Lemon, Gates wrote, "I was very pleased that the president called me today, and I was pleased that he proposed that I meet with Sgt. Crowley at the White House, since I had offered to meet with him since last Monday. "I am eager for this to be used as a teaching moment to improve racial relations in America," said the e-mail. "This is certainly not about me." His attorney, Charles Ogletree, told Lemon that he applauds Obama's intervention and "I look forward to working this out with all parties amicably." Asked if he plans to file suit, Ogletree said, "It depends on the response from everyone involved as to how we'll proceed." Earlier Friday, police unions said Obama should apologize to members of the Cambridge Police Department for saying they acted stupidly, the president of a city police union said.  Watch African-American colleagues defend Crowley » Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, also took aim at Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who reportedly has characterized the arrest as "every black man's nightmare and a reality for many black men." Echoing the words of Crowley, O'Connor said he was dismayed that the president and governor would opine on the issue without all the details. "It's noteworthy that both qualified their statements by saying they did not have all the facts," O'Connor said as members of his and another police union stood behind him. "Usually, when one hears those words, one would expect the next words to be 'so I cannot comment.' Instead, both officials, both admitted friends of professor Gates, proceeded to insult the handling of this case." He further said Cambridge police resent the implication they allowed race to dictate their actions in the situation. "We hope that [Obama and Patrick] will reflect upon their past comments and apologize to the men and women of the Cambridge Police Department," O'Connor said. Steve Killian, president of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association, also called on Obama to apologize to "all law enforcement personnel throughout the entire country that took offense to this." Crowley previously said Obama had offended police in Cambridge and elsewhere. "I was a little surprised and disappointed that the president, who didn't have all of the facts by his own admission, then weighed in on the events of

Question: What does the Union ask Obama to do?

Question: What does the president say?

Question: Who did the union ask Obama to apologize to?

Question: What is Gates eager for?

Question: what does obama owe an apology for

Question: What is Gates eager about?

Answer: apologize

Answer: "helped to contribute to ratcheting"

Answer: members of the Cambridge Police Department

Answer: this to be used as a teaching moment to improve racial relations in America,"

Answer: he said police acted stupidly.

Answer: for this to be used as a teaching moment to improve racial relations in America,"

Summary:
NEW: Gates eager for incident to be "teaching moment" to improve racial relations .
President says he hopes incident provides "a teachable moment"
Attorney says professor has no immediate plans to sue Cambridge police .
Union asked Obama to apologize to "all law enforcement personnel" offended .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama will meet with top congressional leaders from both parties Tuesday to discuss a war in Afghanistan that now appears to be at a potential tipping point. The meeting on the war comes as the Obama administration conducts a review of its Afghan strategy. Obama will be joined by, among others, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the heads of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees in the House and Senate, two Democratic officials said. The meeting comes amid the Obama administration's comprehensive review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Several top military leaders and opposition Republicans are pressing Obama to act quickly to increase the present 68,000-troop level by as many as 40,000. "There's no doubt that, particularly on funding, it's not going to happen until Congress signs off," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday. "They're an important part of this, and the president wants to hear from them." In March, Obama announced a plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to the country to provide security for a national election. That move followed what Obama and others called years of inadequate resources in Afghanistan because of the Bush administration's focus on Iraq. The Obama strategy was based on a counterinsurgency mission intended to defeat terrorists based in Afghanistan while winning local support and helping with development. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took over four months ago as the top U.S. commander in the country, has submitted an assessment in which, sources have told CNN, he says he needs additional forces to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy successfully. Otherwise, McChrystal reportedly warns, the mission could fail, bringing a return of power to the Taliban. "We need to reverse the current trends, and time does matter," McChrystal said last week in a speech in London, England. "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely." U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, appeared to push back Monday against those who are loudly urging a rapid troop increase. It's "important that we get it right," he told a U.S. Army audience. Gates said that it's also "important that all of us ... provide the best advice to the president candidly but privately." Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army, echoed Gates' view, telling reporters that he would be sharing his views "in private" and that they'd be "the second to know." Obama has yet to respond to McChrystal's report, prompting opponents to accuse him of indecisiveness and playing politics that puts U.S. soldiers on the ground at risk.  Watch more on the debate over the best way forward » National Security Adviser James Jones Jr. on Sunday cited three developments since March that have led the White House to reconsider its overall Afghanistan strategy: • Questions about the legitimacy of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's election victory. • McChrystal's conclusion that the Taliban is stronger than previously thought. • Neighboring Pakistan's improved efforts to change the overall dynamic of the border region. "The key in Afghanistan is to have a triad of things happen simultaneously," Jones said on CNN's "State of the Union," listing improved security, economic development and "good governance and the rule of law." Jones said Karzai's government "is going to have to pitch in and do much better" than it has to improve the governance situation after the elections, widely considered as tainted by vote fraud in some areas. Some in Obama's inner circle, including Vice President Joe Biden, are advocating a counterterrorism approach that focuses on combating al Qaeda through the use of unmanned drones and special forces without involving additional troops. Others, especially McChrystal, are strongly advocating the broader counterinsurgency approach, which requires a much larger U.S. military footprint in the country.  See who has Obama's ear on Afghanistan » Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other Senate Republicans -- as well as other advocates of an increase in troop levels

Question: Who has warned the mission could fail?

Question: what is the meeting about

Question: What is undergoing a review?

Question: What has a U.S. commander reportedly warned?

Question: What do some advisers advocate?

Question: who will attend

Question: Who will attend the meeting?

Question: What have some advisers advocated?

Answer: McChrystal

Answer: war in Afghanistan

Answer: Afghan strategy.

Answer: warns, the mission could fail, bringing a return of power to the Taliban.

Answer: a counterterrorism approach that focuses on combating al Qaeda through the use of unmanned drones and special forces without involving additional troops.

Answer: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the heads of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees

Answer: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Answer: counterterrorism approach that focuses on combating al Qaeda through the use of unmanned drones and special forces without involving additional troops.

Summary:
Heads of Armed Services and Foreign Relations panels in Congress will attend .
Meeting comes amid comprehensive review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan .
U.S. commander reportedly has warned the mission could fail without more troops .
Some advisers advocate counterterrorism approach without adding troops .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama will rack up plenty of frequent flyer miles this summer with planned trips in Africa, Russia and Italy. President Obama will travel to Ghana for two days after the G8 Summit in July. Obama, along with his wife, Michelle, will visit Accra, Ghana, on July 10 and July 11, the White House said Saturday. It will follow Obama's trip to the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, from July 8 to July 10. Obama will address various bilateral and regional issues with Ghanaian President John Atta Mills, the White House said in a news statement. "The President and Mrs. Obama look forward to strengthening the U.S. relationship with one of our most trusted partners in sub-Saharan Africa, and to highlighting the critical role that sound governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development," according to the statement. Obama announced a week ago that he will visit Egypt on June 4 to deliver a speech on America's relationship with the Muslim world. Egypt is "a country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at the time. Gibbs deflected several questions at his daily briefing about whether Egypt is a wise choice given President Hosni Mubarak's resistance to making his government more democratic. Obama originally promised to deliver the speech during his first 100 days, but senior administration officials say the date slipped in part because of security and logistical issues. Obama has visited Africa before as a senator. In 2006, he received a hero's welcome in his father's native Kenya. Before the G8 summit, the president is scheduled to travel to Moscow from July 6 to July 8 at the invitation of Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev. The G8 is made up of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, England and the United States.

Question: Which country is hosting the G8 Summit in July?

Question: When did Obama last travel to Africa?

Question: when obama traveled to africa

Question: When was Obama last in Africa?

Question: What other countries are on his itenary?

Question: Where is Obama planning to visit this summer?

Question: who is barac obama

Answer: Ghana

Answer: In 2006,

Answer: July 10 and July 11,

Answer: In 2006,

Answer: Africa, Russia and Italy.

Answer: Africa, Russia and Italy.

Answer: President

Summary:
Obama to visit Ghana after his trip to Italy's G8 Summit in July .
Obama also planning to visit Egypt, Russia this summer .
Obama last traveled to Africa in 2006 .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama's ambitious strategy for Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, dubbed "Afpak" by administration officials, will face its first test Wednesday when he meets with the leaders of both countries -- neither of which is seen as able to maintain stability and fight strengthening Islamic insurgencies. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari will meet with Afghanistan's president and President Obama. The president will meet separately with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari before holding a joint session with the two leaders. The leaders also will hold talks at the State Department, FBI, CIA and on Capitol Hill. Obama will try to build an enduring regional alliance with both countries, enlisting them as full partners rather than treating them as battlefields for U.S. soldiers to fight extremists. But both leaders are seen as weak and are deeply unpopular back home. The Taliban has re-emerged to retake large swaths of Afghanistan, and in recent weeks, Taliban fighters have made alarming advances in Pakistan. Just last week, the State Department warned that al Qaeda continues to enjoy safe haven along the rugged border between the countries, where al Qaeda plots attacks against the U.S. and its allies. U.S. concern has focused on Pakistan, which Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, on Monday aptly warned has its "pants on fire." In Pakistan's Swat Valley, the government's recent peace deal with militants pushing for the establishment of strict Islamic law went awry, allowing the Taliban to advance within 60 miles of the capital, Islamabad. The government's initial inaction prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to accuse Islamabad of abdicating to terrorists. Obama also expressed concern about the fragility of Zardari's government. Richard Holbrooke, Obama's formidable point man for Afpak, insists Pakistan isn't a failed state. Yet there is plenty of concern in Washington that Zardari's government could fall, leaving Pakistan's considerable nuclear arsenal at risk. Holbrooke also played down reports the U.S. is courting Zardari's main political rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Rather, officials say the U.S. wants the two men to work together, which would divert Zardari's attention away from domestic political squabbles and enable him to unite the country in the fight against extremists. This is the U.S. main challenge -- persuading Pakistan to focus on what it considers a "mortal threat," and not on what Obama himself has called the Pakistani military's misguided "obsession" with neighboring India. The Taliban advances seem to have delivered a wake-up call to the government, which has launched an offensive against the militants. To help, Obama has asked Congress to quickly approve hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency aid to help the Pakistanis combat the insurgency and is supporting a $7.5 billion civilian aid package over the next five years. Concerned about reports that the Pakistani military is working at cross-purposes and, in some cases, aiding the Taliban, Congress is trying to condition the money on progress made by Pakistani forces in rooting out extremists. A key component of the U.S. strategy is a surge in civilian assistance to boost domestic support for both governments. In an effort to promote more economic development and cooperation between the U.S. and the two countries, the ministers of agriculture and finance from both countries have been invited to Washington to join the talks. While the U.S. focus clearly has been on Pakistan, violence in Afghanistan has reached its highest levels since Taliban forces were driven from power after the U.S. invaded in the fall of 2001 in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. The U.S. wants to ensure stability in the lead-up to August elections, which is why Obama has committed 21,000 additional troops, in addition to the much needed economic assistance. Since talking office in January, Obama and other U.S. officials have been tough on Karzai, criticizing his government as ineffective and weak on corruption. Karzai further angered U.S. officials this week when he named Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a powerful warlord accused of violating human rights, as his vice presidential running mate, despite warnings from Secretary of State Clinton that Fahim would be a polarizing choice. But despite the

Question: Where have the Taliban made gaines recently?

Question: What does a lack of influence do?

Question: What is the president's agenda?

Question: Who did Obama meet?

Question: Is the agenda ambitious?

Question: Who is Obama meeting?

Answer: Afghanistan,

Answer: al Qaeda continues to enjoy safe haven

Answer: build an enduring regional alliance with both countries,

Answer: leaders of both countries

Answer: strategy for Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan,

Answer: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari

Summary:
Obama to meet with leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan on Wednesday .
President's ambitious agenda for nations faces its first critical test .
Recent Taliban gains in nuclear-armed Pakistan especially worrisome .
Analysis: Lack of influence with the populace could weaken Obama's hand .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Richard M. Nixon and his Brazilian counterpart, Emilio Medici, in 1971 discussed ways their countries could work together to overthrow the socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, according to a newly declassified document. President Richard M. Nixon, right, and his Brazilian counterpart, Emilio Medici. During a meeting of the two leaders at the White House on December 9 of that year, Medici was discussing the possibility of a coup by the Chilean military with assistance from Brazilian military officers when Nixon said that it was "very important that Brazil and the United States work closely in this field," according to the document. Nixon offered money or other discreet aid for the effort if it could be made available, the document shows. "We must try and prevent new Allendes and Castros, and try where possible to reverse these trends," Nixon said. Medici said he was "happy to see that the Brazilian and American positions and views" were so close. The declassified document, a previously top secret memorandum for Nixon's file written by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, was published by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute in Washington. The memorandum, along with other documents, were declassified in July as part of the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States series. "This is an explosive document that details collusion between the colossus of the North [the United States] and the colossus of the South [Brazil]," said Peter Kornbluh, the director of a Chile and Brazil Documentation Project for the National Security Archive. He called it "a smoking gun of confirmation of Brazil's effort to engage in operations to overthrow the government of Chile and a discussion of collusion with the United States." The two leaders also discussed the creation of a back channel for direct communication outside normal diplomatic protocols, according to the document. Each designated personal aides to carry handwritten communications back and forth to keep discussions out of official records. "I think there is precedent, but we've never seen it detailed in a document this way, in which two presidents set up the utmost secret of back-channel communications so they can discuss the most sensitive aspects of collusion and collaboration in efforts to challenge the left in Latin America and change the futures of select Latin American governments," Kornbluh said. He added that "there's a significant paper trail of evidence of what that collusion was that remains secret, and we're going to have to press Brazil and Washington to recover those documents." Despite the leaders' effort to keep the subject of their talks secret, word got out. A declassified CIA memorandum written some time after the Nixon-Medici meeting in Washington said that word of the secret talks between the two leaders about shaping Brazilian foreign policy filtered down to Brazilian military officers by a "Cabinet leak." Gen. Vicente Dale Coutinho, commander of Brazil's 4th Army, reacted to this by saying that the United States obviously wanted Brazil "to do the dirty work," it said. A declassified CIA national intelligence estimate written in 1972 concluded, "Brazil will be playing a bigger role in hemispheric affairs and seeking to fill whatever vacuum the U.S. leaves behind. It is unlikely that Brazil will intervene openly in its neighbors' internal affairs, but the regime will not be above using the threat of intervention or tools of diplomacy and covert action to oppose leftist regimes, to keep friendly governments in office, or to help place them there." The newly published documents do not offer any conclusive proof of Brazilian involvement in the Chilean coup of 1973, which the Nixon administration supported. Kornbluh said that with the passage of time and change in governments in all of the countries involved, the real story of diplomatic and covert collusion between the United States and Brazil in Chile can finally be told. The National Security Archive will push for the declassification and publication of more top-secret documents from the Nixon library, he said, and will approach Brazilian government officials to ask for their cooperation in getting documents released in Washington and Brasilia, the capital of

Question: who had like-minded goals?

Question: What month were declassified some documents?

Question: when were documents declassified ?

Question: Who met at white house?

Question: What did the CIA memo say about the Brazilian general?

Question: When were the documents declassified?

Question: How many leaders met at the White House?

Question: What did Nixon offer?

Question: What did the U.S. want Brazil to do?

Question: What does document show?

Answer: President Richard M. Nixon and his Brazilian counterpart, Emilio Medici,

Answer: July

Answer: in July

Answer: President Richard M. Nixon and his Brazilian counterpart, Emilio Medici,

Answer: reacted to this by saying that the United States obviously wanted Brazil "to do the dirty work,"

Answer: in July

Answer: two

Answer: money or other discreet aid

Answer: overthrow the socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile,

Answer: Nixon offered money or other discreet aid for the effort if it could be made available,

Summary:
Document shows Richard M. Nixon, Emilio Medici had like-minded goals .
It says two leaders met at White House, Nixon offered money or other discreet aid .
CIA memo says Brazilian general thought U.S. wanted Brazil "to do the dirty work"
Memo, other documents were declassified in July of this year as part of project .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President-elect Barack Obama is likely to name Steven Chu, a physicist who runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as his energy secretary, three Democratic officials close to the transition said.

Steven Chu explains his Nobel-winning theory on superfreezing gases in 1997.

The three officials said the announcement is expected next week in Chicago, Illinois, and that Obama will also name Carol Browner, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration, as the newly created "climate czar" inside the White House.

Chu won the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics and is highly respected in energy circles. But some Democrats have privately expressed concern that Chu has no political experience as he takes on the monumental task of passing a landmark energy reform bill early next year.

Although Browner is seen as a shrewd inside player who could help the incoming energy secretary navigate Capitol Hill, Obama will face questions about how effective his team will be going up against oil companies and other special interests that do not want to change the status quo.

"Energy is going to be a huge fight," one Democratic official said. "They need someone with the gravitas and force of personality to make it happen."

Democrats have privately floated some other big names for energy secretary in recent days, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

But a source close to Schwarzenegger said the governor wants to serve out the rest of his term.

A source close to Powell said the retired general will take "no formal Cabinet role" in an Obama administration but is leaving the door open to an informal troubleshooting role -- such as Mideast envoy -- if the incoming president has a specific mission that needs to be filled. iReport.com: What do you think of Obama's cabinet picks so far?

Energy is one aspect of the president-elect's one-year goal to create 2.5 million jobs by 2011. The plan, which Obama announced Saturday, aims to put Americans to work updating the country's infrastructure, making public buildings more energy-efficient and implementing environmentally friendly technologies, including alternative energy sources.

During his campaign, Obama said he would invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. He proposed increasing fuel economy standards and requiring that 10 percent of electricity in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Question:
What does Chu lack?
Who is going to be named as nominee?
Nominee for what?
What will be tough?
When is Chu to be named nominee?
When does the team face a tough fight?

Answer: political experience

Answer: Steven Chu,

Answer: energy secretary,

Answer: "Energy is going to

Answer: next week

Answer: Saturday,

Summary:
Physicist Steven Chu to be named as nominee next week .
Former EPA chief Carol Browner picked as new "climate czar"
Nobel Prize winner Chu has some wondering about lack of experience .
Obama's energy team will face tough fight next year, officials warn .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, kicked off a push Wednesday to persuade Americans that the president should repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that prevents openly gay troops from serving in the U.S. military.

Rep. Patrick Murphy, a veteran of the Iraq war, says it is time to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Murphy, D-Pennsylvania, appeared along with several gay, lesbian and straight service members to launch the initiative.

"We can not afford to wait any longer" for the policy's repeal, Murphy said at the National Press Club in Washington. "Now is the time to change this, when our military is stretched so thin" with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A "Voices of Honor" tour, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, will travel across the country, sharing stories of gay, lesbian and straight servicemen and -women in hopes of garnering support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the law that established the policy.

The act would allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military without concealing their sexuality.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "We must repeal this discriminatory policy and ensure that our military can recruit and retain the best and the brightest troops regardless of their sexual orientation."

President Obama has said he wants Congress to repeal the law, but gay rights groups have been angered that the president has not done more to hasten the change.

Since Obama took office, 287 service members have been discharged for being gay, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which supports the repeal.

The bill, introduced by Colin Powell in 1993 and signed into law by President Clinton, ended the protocol requiring service members to state their sexual orientation.

But Powell now says the time has come to review whether the policy is still necessary.

"Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed," Powell said.

"I am withholding judgment, because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the joint chiefs of staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added.

The military's top uniformed officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, said Wednesday that it's clear the president wants the law changed and that he is beginning to work with his staff on how a repeal would be implemented. But, he advised, with two wars ongoing, that the decision not be hurried.

"When I talk about looking at this in the future, we have a force that's under extraordinary stress, and it's a force that, you know, should this occur, I think we need to implement in a way that is -- that recognizes the challenges and the stress that we're under right now," said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "But, if it does occur, when it does occur, you know, I'll certainly lead it and carry it out."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said he is looking for ways to make the policy "more humane," including letting people serve who may have been outed because of vengeance or a jilted lover.

But there is plenty of opposition to the repeal. In the spring, more than 1,000 retired officers signed a letter organized by Flag and General Officers for the Military urging Obama to uphold the law.

"We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the all-volunteer force," the letter said.

The recent shooting death of a sailor has also raised questions about acceptance of gays among troops. The family of Seaman August Provost of Houston, Texas, said they

Question: Who signed the law?

Question: Who says the decision should not be hasty?

Question: Who introduced this law?

Question: Which year was the law singed?

Question: When did President Clinton sign the law ?

Question: When was the law eventually signed?

Answer: President Clinton,

Answer: Adm. Mike Mullen,

Answer: Colin Powell

Answer: 1993

Answer: 1993

Answer: 1993

Summary:
NEW: Amid wars, decision should not be hasty, Joint Chiefs chair says .
"We can not afford to wait any longer" to change policy, congressman says .
President Clinton signed law in 1993 after it was introduced by Colin Powell .
Family of dead seaman says they believe he was killed because he was gay .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached an important milestone Wednesday in her quest to pay the debt from her failed 2008 presidential bid: For the first time in eight months, her campaign committee reported having more money in the bank than it owes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign committee reported owing $2.3 million in debt at the end of March.

On a day most Americans were preoccupied with filing their federal income taxes, Clinton's campaign committee filed finance documents with the Federal Election Commission, reporting a total of $2.3 million in debts at the end of March, compared with $2.6 million in the bank.

The nation's top diplomat has been steadily chipping away at unpaid campaign bills since suspending her White House bid in June 2008, when her debt peaked at $25.2 million. That amount covered $12 million owed to vendors, as well as the $13.2 million she loaned her campaign from personal funds.

Clinton's campaign was unable to repay that personal loan by the time the Democratic National Convention convened in Denver, Colorado, last August, the deadline mandated by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The former New York senator was forced to forgive the entire loan amount.

Her campaign owed $6.4 million to 16 creditors at the end of November; $5.9 million to five creditors at the end of December; and the current $2.3 million owed to just one creditor at the end of March. That creditor is Penn, Schoen & Berland, a political consulting and polling firm that advised Clinton during her presidential bid. The firm's president, Mark Penn, was Clinton's senior campaign strategist until he stepped down last April amid revelations that he had lobbied on behalf of Colombia for a U.S.-Colombia trade deal that Clinton opposed. Penn remained involved with the campaign.

Earlier this year, Clinton and her supporters raced to pay as much of the debt as possible by the time she was confirmed and sworn in as the nation's 67th secretary of state on January 21. As of that date, Clinton became subject to a federal law known as the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from personally soliciting or accepting political contributions. The Hatch Act allows others to keep raising money on Clinton's behalf, without her direct involvement.

This week, longtime Clinton ally James Carville, a CNN contributor, sent a fundraising e-mail to Democrats on behalf of Clinton's campaign, requesting contributions of as little as $5 in exchange for a chance to win one of several prizes, including spending a day with former President Bill Clinton.

"I won't spend a lot of time trying to convince you to help Hillary," Carville e-mailed. "I know what she means to you, and I'm sure you know how important it is for her to have her campaign pay off all its obligations."

It's unclear whether the campaign will use the $2.6 million in the bank to clear its $2.3 million in debts in the short term. Continued fundraising indicates that it will not. Additional operating expenses and other outlays could emerge.

Any extra money from the campaign could be donated to political causes or returned to donors.

Clinton's campaign reported raising $938,000 in contributions in the first three months of 2009.

In addition to tapping traditional fundraising, the campaign also generated money by selling or renting various campaign assets to other organizations. It received $2.6 million from Clinton's "Friends of Hillary" U.S. Senate campaign committee for the sale of unspecified assets and an additional $2.2 million from renting out its lists of campaign supporters.

Organizations that have rented Clinton's lists include the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the inaugural committee of then-President-elect Barack Obama, and the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation. Those organizations each paid $274,297. Clinton's political action committee, HillPAC, rented the lists for $822,492.

Among the Democratic candidates who have rented Clinton's campaign lists are Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln; Virginia gubernatorial candidate and former Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe; New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Clinton's seat

Question: What James Carville did to Democrats?

Question: How much campaign debt does Clinton have

Question: How much does she owe?

Question: In which year Hillary Clinton failed presidential bid?

Question: James Carville sent what to Democrats

Answer: sent a fundraising e-mail

Answer: $2.3 million in

Answer: $2.3 million

Answer: 2008

Answer: fundraising e-mail

Summary:
Hillary Clinton owes $2.3 million in campaign debt from failed 2008 presidential bid .
Her campaign committee reported having $2.6 million in bank at end of March .
Clinton ally James Carville recently sent fundraising e-mail to Democrats .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, announced Friday that he will resign his seat as soon as a replacement can be named by the governor. Sen. Mel Martinez is the only Hispanic Republican in the U.S. Senate. "My priorities have always been my faith, my family and my country, and, at this stage of my life and after nearly 12 years of public service in Florida and in Washington, it is time to return to Florida and my family," the 62-year-old said in Orlando, Florida. "So today I am announcing my decision to step down from public office." Martinez said he is resigning "of my own free will. There is no impending reason; it's only my desire to move on and to get on with the rest of my life." He added that he is in good health and that he expects the next phase of his life will take place in the private sector. "However, I do hope that I can have a voice to speak out on issues I think are important," he said. Martinez added that he has no plans to run for any other public office. At a news conference at McDill Air Force Base in Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist said he will "undertake a very thorough, comprehensive, thoughtful process" to find a replacement for Martinez. He vowed not to appoint himself to complete Martinez's six-year term, which ends in about 17 months, and predicted that he would reach a decision before the Senate returns from recess September 8. Crist, a Republican, had announced in May that he would not seek a second term as governor and instead would run for Martinez's seat in the 2010 election. Martinez was elected in 2004. He announced in December his intention to retire at the end of his term. Martinez is the only Hispanic Republican in the Senate. He joined eight other Republicans on Thursday in voting to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats hold a tenuous filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, with 60 votes. Martinez is one of six Republicans who have stated they would not seek re-election in 2010. But the Florida senator is the second Republican who has decided to leave before the curtain drops on the 111th Congress next fall. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, recently announced her intention to quit the Senate three years before her term expires, in order to run for governor next year. The five other Republicans who are retiring are Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning and Ohio Sen. George Voinovich. Two Democrats will not run in 2010: Illinois Sen. Roland Burris and Delaware Sen. Ted Kaufman. Republicans must defend 19 seats next year, and Democrats must protect 18. CNN's Rick DiBella, Mark Preston and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Question: Which governor will seek the seat?

Question: Which Florida senator is not seeking re-election?

Question: In what month did the individual in question announce they would not seek reelection?

Answer: Crist,

Answer: Sen. Mel Martinez,

Answer: May

Summary:
NEW: Florida senator says there is no "impending reason" behind decision .
NEW: He has no plans to run for another office, he says .
He announced in December that he would not seek re-election .
Florida governor has said he will seek the seat .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Several Marines who were involved in the November 2004 offensive in Falluja, Iraq, are now the focus of an investigation into allegations that civilians were intentionally killed during the operation, several Pentagon officials have confirmed. Members of the 1st U.S. Marines Expeditionary Force operate in Falluja, Iraq, in November of 2006. No one has been charged in the probe, which is based on what one official told CNN were "credible allegations" from a former Marine. That Marine volunteered the information during an employment polygraph test administered by the U.S. Secret Service. Several sources familiar with the probe say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is conducting the investigation. The allegations first surfaced on a Web site, defendourmarines.com, posted by Nathaniel Helms, a military journalist who wrote a book about the Marines in Falluja. The Web posting includes an account from a Marine who alleges eight captured Iraqis were gunned down following a firefight. The weeklong anti-insurgent offensive in Falluja began on November 7, 2004. It was called Operation New Dawn, and it sparked intense fighting involving airstrikes and house-to-house searches. There were reports of civilians being killed in the crossfire at that time. The allegations are the latest involving Marines and civilian deaths in Iraq. Seven Marines and a Navy medic were charged with killing an Iraqi civilian in Hamdaniya in April 2006. One Marine will serve eight years in a plea deal; another Marine withdrew his guilty plea, saying he acted under orders. Four Marines were charged with murder in the 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha. Four officers are accused of failing to investigate and report the deaths properly. Haditha was a target of Marine operations to root out insurgents. Both U.S. military law and international law of armed conflict prohibit the killing of unarmed captured prisoners, whether or not they are combatants.  E-mail to a friend

Question: What is called "credible."

Question: Who are the focus of the 2004 Falluja civilian death investigation?

Question: Who is conducting the probe?

Question: Are allegations from former Marine called "credible"

Question: what caused the marines to be the focus?

Answer: allegations"

Answer: Several Marines

Answer: Naval Criminal Investigative Service

Answer: were "credible allegations"

Answer: allegations that civilians were intentionally killed during the operation,

Summary:
Several Marines are the focus of 2004 Falluja civilian death investigation .
Allegations from former Marine called "credible"
Sources: Naval Criminal Investigative Services conducting the probe .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Sheila Wash greets her son and daughter, 13-year-old Cecil and 9-year-old Sheliah, every day when their school buses arrive "home."

Sheila Wash says being homeless has been an "eye-opening experience" for her.

They talk about the school day, their homework and even joke that Sheliah can't remember what she ate for lunch. The fourth-grader wonders aloud, "What did we have? We had something good."

But it's hardly a homecoming for any of them.

The Wash family has been homeless since 2007, after Sheila lost her government job. She says unemployment benefits quickly ran out and, as she searched for a job, the family was forced to move six times in the last two years. They're now living in the Family Forward Shelter in Washington.

"I just thank God we have a roof over our head right now. You have to accept the things that come to you. You don't like them but, you know, until you can get your foot forward, you do what you have to do. We just keep going," Wash said.

Wash's situation was only made worse as the economic recession set in. Jobs became harder and harder to find with more competition for each position. She says she's still searching.

The Washes are part of the changing face of homelessness in America today. For years, homelessness has been depicted as that of an individual man or woman living on the street and begging for money. But with the perfect storm of the foreclosure crisis and the faltering economy, more and more families are becoming homeless. According to a recent count by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the number of homeless families in the Washington region alone has jumped 15 percent since last year.

There are several national estimates of homelessness, but many are dated or based on dated information. TheU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development points to a study done in 2007 -- before the brunt of the foreclosure crisis hit --which stated that about 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year. That study was conducted by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

"People lose their jobs. Their monthly household expenses spiral out of control because maybe their car broke down that month, and when you have such a tight budget with high rental costs, there is no room for error. And so that is what really leads families to the shelter door," said Mary Cunningham, author of "Preventing and Ending Homelessness - Next Steps."

Reflecting on their struggles over the last few years, Sheila calls it "eye-opening." "It's like they say you never know [someone] until you walk in their shoes, so truly I know now and if I ever get out [of] this situation, I will always give back to people less fortunate than I am because I know their struggles," Wash said.

School officials in Prince George's County, Maryland, where the two Wash children go to school, say a day doesn't go by without the need to enroll another child as homeless. Denise Ross, supervisor for the school district's Homeless Education Office, said they've been inundated with requests.

"Some of them are embarrassed, some of them are scared, some of them are sad. They're just not sure what's going to happen next," Ross said. "Students who are displaced or homeless students feel that school is a safe haven. They really want to come to school. They really want to attend school."

For homeless students, Prince George's County Schools offers free transportation to and from school, free breakfast and lunch, help with school supplies and also clothing. "Either in the shuffle of being evicted or moving from shelter to shelter or place to place, their clothes may not have followed them. Or may have been set out and somebody may have taken them. So they may only have [the] clothes that are on their back.

Question: What do school officials say?

Question: when have they been homeless since

Question: what happened to make them homeless

Question: How long have they been homeless?

Question: What caused Sheila Wash to be homeless?

Question: Where has homelessness increased by 15%?

Question: who has been homesless

Question: What does the Author say?

Answer: a day doesn't go by without the need to enroll another child as homeless.

Answer: 2007,

Answer: after Sheila lost her government job.

Answer: since 2007,

Answer: lost her government job.

Answer: Washington region

Answer: Sheila Wash

Answer: really leads families to the shelter door,"

Summary:
Sheila Wash and her two kids have been homeless since 2007, after she lost her job .
School officials in the Washes' district say more of their students are homeless .
Author: Having "no room for error" on finances often sends families to shelter door .
By one count, homelessness in the D.C. area has jumped by 15% over last year .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Shortly before President Obama departs for a trip to the Middle East, a new national poll suggests that one in five Americans has a favorable view of Muslim countries. President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visit an Istanbul mosque in April. That view compares with 46 percent of the people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey who say they have an unfavorable opinion of Muslim countries. That's up 5 percentage points from 2002, when 41 percent indicated that they had an unfavorable view. Meanwhile, three in 10 say they have a neutral opinion of Muslim countries. The poll also suggests that most Americans suspect people in Muslim countries don't think highly of the United States. Nearly eight in 10 questioned say people in Muslim countries have a unfavorable opinion of the United States, with 14 percent saying Muslims hold a favorable view. iReport.com: Your perspectives on the Muslim world But the poll indicates Americans seem to be split on whether such negative opinions by Muslims matter. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say they think Muslim views of the United States matter greatly or moderately, with 47 percent saying that Muslim opinions of the United States don't matter very much or at all. The poll's release comes hours before the president flies to Saudi Arabia for meetings with King Abdullah. Following the stop in Saudi Arabia, Obama will head to Egypt, where he'll deliver a long-awaited speech Thursday on relations between the United States and the Muslim world.  Watch the challenges Obama faces with the speech » At a town hall in Turkey earlier this year, the president declared that "the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam." Many Americans seem to agree with the president: Sixty-two percent of those surveyed say they don't think the United States is at war with the Muslim world, with 36 percent indicating that the country is at war with Muslim countries. Those numbers have remained stable since CNN's 2002 poll. But the poll suggests that six out of 10 think that the Muslim world considers itself at war with the United States. "The feeling seems to be mutual. We distrust Muslims. They distrust Americans. Views of Americans have not changed very much over the past seven years. There are some indications that Muslims' views of Americans have improved a bit since Barack Obama took office, but they are still not positive," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted May 14-17, with 1,010 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Question: who has a favorable view of muslim countries?

Question: Who will be the primary audience of Obama's speech?

Question: Where will Obama give his speech?

Question: where was the speech?

Question: Does the average American have a favorable view of Muslim countries?

Answer: one in five Americans

Answer: the Muslim world.

Answer: Egypt,

Answer: Egypt,

Answer: one in five

Summary:
Poll: One in five Americans has a favorable view of Muslim countries .
Poll released on eve of President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, to Muslim world .
Poll: Americans say they aren't at war with Muslims but think Muslims at war with U.S.


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Six life insurance companies have qualified to receive billions of dollars in bailout money under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Allstate is one of six life insurance companies who are qualified to receive TARP money. Treasury Department spokesman Andrew Williams said Allstate, Ameriprise Financial, Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Lincoln National Corp., Principal Financial and Prudential Financial Inc. have qualified for TARP money. "These life insurers met the requirements for the Capital Purchase Program because of their bank holding company status and each applied for CPP capital investments by the deadline of November 14, 2008," Williams said. Williams also said other financial institutions in the Capital Purchase Program "will be reviewed and funded as appropriate on a rolling basis." In April, about $135 billion remained from the original $700 billion allocated for the bailout last October. No current figures were immediately available. No funding amounts were announced by the Treasury Department, but Hartford said it had been preliminarily approved for $3.4 billion. "We are pleased that we received preliminary approval to participate in (the) Treasury's Capital Purchase Program," said Ramani Ayer, chairman and chief executive officer of Hartford. "These funds would further fortify our capital resources and provide us with additional financial flexibility during one of the most volatile market climates in our nation's history." Investors have been increasingly worried about the health of life insurers, which have been hit hard by worries about capital requirements and growing losses. A number of insurers that are also bank holding companies or thrifts have been eligible for funds from TARP since last fall. Last year, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved applications from Hartford and Lincoln to become bank holding companies, because of their planned bank purchases. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based Lincoln is buying Newton County Loan & Savings FSB in Goodland, Indiana. Hartford, based in Hartford, Connecticut, is buying Federal Trust Bank in Sanford, Florida.

Question: how many insurance companies will receive money?

Question: How many insurance comapnies received TARP money?

Question: How much money was allocated for the bailout?

Question: How much money remained in the fund as of April?

Question: who will receive the money

Question: when will the money be released

Question: how much remains?

Question: where is the money coming from?

Answer: six life

Answer: six

Answer: $700 billion

Answer: about $135 billion

Answer: Six life insurance companies

Answer: November 14, 2008,"

Answer: $135 billion

Answer: Troubled Asset Relief Program,

Summary:
Six life insurance companies to receive TARP money, U.S. Treasury says .
As of April, about $135 billion remained from original $700 billion allocated for bailout .
Industry has suffered amid concerns with capital requirements, growing losses .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Smoking cessation programs make up $75 million of the economic stimulus bill making its way through the Senate, according to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who sponsored the funding. Sen. Tom Harkin's office says smoking causes $110 billion in health costs each year. Harkin said the programs were an attempt to bolster the economy by lowering the soaring health-care costs smoking causes each year. The money will be used to bolster existing anti-smoking campaigns run by the Department of Health and Human Services and to buy new equipment at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tests the contents of cigarettes. Harkin's office cited figures that smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths and causes $110 billion in heath costs every year. Harkin believes prevention will go a long way to boosting the health of Americans while boosting health of the American economy.  Watch Harkin describe how anti-smoking programs help economy » The U.S. House on Wednesday evening passed the $819 billion economic stimulus package on a party-line vote, despite President Barack Obama's efforts to achieve bipartisan support for the bill, CNNMoney.com reports. The final vote was 244 to 188. No Republicans voted for the bill, while 11 Democrats voted against it. The Senate is likely to take up the bill next week.

Question: What amount would go toward smoking cessation programs?

Question: What programs are going to receive $75million?

Question: What is the intended result of the smoking cessation programs?

Question: What do the programs hope to bolster?

Question: what amount  would go toward smoking cessation programs?

Question: What did the U.S. House pass?

Question: What did the US House pass?

Question: Who made the annoucement about smoking cessation programs?

Question: What do the programs lower the cost of?

Answer: $75 million

Answer: Smoking cessation

Answer: lowering the soaring health-care costs

Answer: the economy

Answer: $75 million

Answer: $819 billion economic stimulus package on a party-line vote,

Answer: $819 billion economic stimulus package

Answer: Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa,

Answer: soaring health-care

Summary:
$75 million would go toward smoking cessation programs, says Sen. Tom Harkin .
Programs are effort to bolster economy by lowering soaring health-care costs .
U.S. House passes $819 billion economic stimulus package .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Some $700 million in economic stimulus money intended to upgrade baggage screening systems at airports will go further than originally expected, Department of Homeland Security officials said Wednesday. The new systems can process up to 500 bags an hour, compared to the 150 to 160 bags per hour on the older machines, the TSA said. The DHS said the money will now upgrade systems at 10 additional airports. Earlier this year the DHS announced funding for baggage screening at airports in 15 cities. The money will be used to speed up construction of in-line baggage screening systems, which take advantage of the airline's existing conveyor belt systems to check bags, eliminating the need for minivan-size bomb detection systems now found in many airport lobbies. Government auditors have long complained about existing systems, which the Transportation Security Administration rushed into place to meet congressional deadlines after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At airports with in-line systems, airline workers at the ticketing counters place the bags on conveyor belts, which pass through explosive detectors on their way to the aircraft. That is more efficient than stand-alone systems, which the TSA employees must staff. In addition, in-line systems can process up to 500 bags an hour, compared to the 150 to 160 bags per hour processed by stand-alone machines, the TSA said. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement that DHS was able to "stretch our resources" by managing the recovery money and by negotiating with airports. In addition to the $700 million intended for checked baggage systems, $300 million is being allocated for checkpoint technology, such as new X-ray machines, "whole body imaging" technology and bottled liquid scanners. The new airports expected to get stimulus money for in-line explosive detection systems are: • Washington Dulles International Airport (Chantilly, Virginia) • Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (St. Louis, Missouri) • Yellowstone Regional Airport (Cody, Wyoming) • William P. Hobby Airport (Houston, Texas) • St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport (St. Petersburg, Florida) • Gallatin Field Airport (Bozeman, Montana) • Little Rock National Airport (Little Rock, Arkansas) • Tulsa International Airport (Tulsa, Oklahoma) • Charlotte Douglas International Airport (Charlotte, North Carolina) • Colorado Springs Airport (Colorado Springs, Colorado) Earlier this year, DHS announced funding for airports in the following cities: Atlanta, Georgia; Columbus, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio; Honolulu, Hawaii; Huntsville, Alabama; Jackson, Wyoming; Maui, Hawaii; New Orleans, Louisiana; Orange County, California; Orlando, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Maine; and Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose, California. To learn more about the DHS Recovery Act projects, visit www.dhs.gov/recovery.

Question: What does the Department of Homeland security say?

Question: How many additional airports did DHS identify to receive in-line baggage screening systems?

Question: Are updated screening processes more efficient than stand-alone machines?

Question: What makes this process more efficient than stand-alone machines?

Question: What does the department of Homeland security say can happen with stimulus money?

Question: Which airports will receive in-line baggage screening systems?

Answer: systems at airports will go further than originally expected,

Answer: 10

Answer: systems,

Answer: airline workers at the ticketing counters place the bags on conveyor belts, which pass through explosive detectors on their way to the aircraft.

Answer: will be used to speed up construction of in-line baggage screening systems,

Answer: Washington Dulles International

Summary:
Department of Homeland security says stimulus money can be stretched .
DHS identified 10 additional airports to receive in-line baggage screening systems .
Updated screening process is more efficient than stand-alone machines .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Somewhere, it's engraved in stone: "Thou shalt remove thy laptop from thy bag." Beginning Saturday, travelers will be able to leave laptops in bags that meet TSA screening requirements. But savvy travelers can begin ignoring that commandment of air travel beginning Saturday, when the Transportation Security Administration begins recognizing the latest innovation in aviation security -- checkpoint-friendly computer bags. The TSA said it has worked with bag manufacturers to address one of the biggest frustrations of air travelers, the need to remove computers from carry-on bags and place them in bins. It asked manufacturers to design bags that give X-ray machines a clear, unobstructed view of the laptops. Some 60 manufacturers responded to the TSA's solicitation, with 40 of them submitting prototypes for testing. About a dozen manufacturers are currently advertising checkpoint-friendly bags. Many of the bags are deceptively simple. One common design resembles a clam shell. The case unzips into two, with one side holding the computer and the other holding computer peripherals, keys and other personal items. All of the bags are devoid of metal zippers, clips and buckles on the side of the bag that holds the computer.  Learn about the TSA's laptop bag requirements » Travelers at Reagan National Airport near Washington had different opinions on the hassles of carrying computers but were uniformly supportive of having checkpoint-friendly bags. "Sign me up," said traveler Seth Robertson, who was carrying a computer bag and a large, stuffed pony, a present for a friend in Nicaragua. Getting the computer through the checkpoint was more difficult than the stuffed animal, he said. "The laptop, I have to take out of the bag and put it separately," Robertson said, whereas the pony, he could "just stuff right through." Screeners didn't even look the gift horse in the mouth. The TSA says about one-third of all air travelers carry laptops. And the current screening procedures are cumbersome for travelers who sometimes leave laptops at the checkpoints in their haste.  Watch a screening demonstration with a new laptop bag » In fact, about 4,800 laptops are lost at airport checkpoints every day, according to a study conducted this year by the Ponemon Institute for the Dell computer company. It is not known how may are quickly recovered, an institute official said. But a checkpoint-friendly carrying case could potentially alleviate problems caused when folks grab the wrong computer by mistake, or grab the bag and forget the computer, he said. TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the bags may even improve speed at checkpoints. "Less time (is) spent putting things in the bin and putting things back in at the other end, so it may help the process along," she said. For a bag to meet TSA requirements, it must meet the following five standards: The TSA says it is not approving or endorsing any bag design, but it says manufacturers have stepped up to the plate, providing a number of bags that qualify.

Question: What must travelers use?

Question: What kind of checkpoints will be available from Saturday?

Question: What shouldn't there be on laptop bags according to the TSA?

Question: Which items can be placed in the new bags?

Question: What must not obstruct the view?

Question: When will the bags be eligible for screening?

Question: What does TSA stand for?

Answer: checkpoint-friendly bags.

Answer: able to leave laptops in bags that meet TSA screening requirements.

Answer: metal zippers, clips and buckles

Answer: laptops

Answer: bags

Answer: Beginning Saturday,

Answer: Transportation Security Administration

Summary:
Checkpoint-friendly computer bags will be eligible for TSA screening Saturday .
Travelers must use bags with a designated laptop-only section .
There must be no metal snaps, zippers or buckles obstructing the view .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Taken alone, a California woman's 20-minute video "scrapbook" is basically a collection of photographic memories spanning her 19-year-old daughter's all-too-brief life. Birthday parties, picnics, graduations -- all set to evocative music and narrated matter-of-factly by the mother.

John Paul Stevens was one of three justices who wanted to grant further review of the defendant's case.

What makes this video unusual is that it was presented at a California murder trial as "victim impact evidence."

The Supreme Court on Monday gave an indirect endorsement to such videos when it rejected an appeal from a defendant who argued that the presentation violated his right to a fair trial.

The high court also rejected a similar capital case, also from California, involving a woman who narrated a video montage of her slain parents. With the court's refusal to intervene, the death sentences imposed by the juries in the two cases were upheld.

At issue was not whether any testimony can be used showing the impact a crime victim's loss had on family, friends and society at large. The question for the justices was how that testimony is presented. Some trial courts, but not all, have allowed such videotapes to be played in court, while often placing limitations on the content.

One case involved Douglas Oliver Kelly, convicted in the 1993 slaying of Sarah Weir. The teenager had befriended Kelly at a Burbank gym. Her body was found stabbed 29 times, probably by a pair of scissors.

During the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecution presented just one witness to provide victim impact evidence: the victim's mother, Martha Farwell, a Los Angeles-area attorney. She had prepared the video, describing how her daughter had been adopted from Canada and was a Blackfoot Indian. In the background is the music of Enya, an Irish singer and composer.

Most of the video simply describes the photos and home movies, but near the end is a shot of Weir's grave and Farwell's narration: "As time goes by, I try very hard not to think of Sarah in terms of this terrible tragedy that we've had to deal with here in court, but rather of her in a place like this."

Over photos of the Canadian landscape, Farwell concludes, "This is filmed in southern Alberta, the land where Sarah's people lived for so many generations. This is the kind of heaven she seems to belong in."

The trial judge had allowed the video to be presented, calling it a "very compelling tape" and adding that "it has more probative value than any prejudicial effect."

Kelly appealed, saying the video so influenced the jury that the panel was unable to render a fair assessment of the penalty. California's highest court allowed the verdict and death penalty to stand, but urged judges to use caution in allowing such video evidence.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in a brief statement, said Monday he would have accepted Kelly's appeal of his sentence and held oral arguments on the issue.

"The videos added nothing relevant to the jury's deliberations," he wrote, "and invited a verdict based on sentiment, rather than reasoned judgment."

But it takes four justices to grant further review of a case, and only Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer joined Stevens.

Breyer called the Kelly video "poignant, tasteful, artistic and, above all, moving," but he noted that was the problem. "Those aspects of the film tell the jury little or nothing about the crime's 'circumstances' " the jury had to consider during sentencing.

The companion case dealt with Samuel Zamudio, convicted in the February 1996 slayings of Elmer Benson, 79, and his wife Gladys, 74, in the South Gate area of Los Angeles. The defendant lived next door to the Bensons and owed money to them. He robbed and stabbed the elderly couple, and a jury sentenced him to death.

The Bensons' daughter, Linda Bouffard, narrated 118 scenes from her parents

Question: where was the murder

Question: what is the name of the defendant of the case?

Answer: California

Answer: Douglas Oliver Kelly,

Summary:
Case involved case of Sara Weir, stabbed to death in California .
Victim's mother, a lawyer, put together moving video scrapbook .
Defendant Douglas Oliver Kelly contended video was prejudicial .
Justices rejected Kelly's appeal, indirectly endorsing victim impact videos .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Terrorists are likely to use a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world in the next five years, a blue-ribbon panel assembled by Congress has concluded.

Police watch over travelers at New York's Grand Central Terminal before Thanksgiving.

They are more likely to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one -- and the results could be devastating, the chairman of the commission told CNN.

"The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed," former Sen. Bob Graham said.

He cited the flu virus that killed millions of people in 1918 as an example.

"Today it is still in the laboratory, but if it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago," he said.  Watch how officials worry about a biological terror attack »

The U.S. government "needs to move more aggressively to limit" the spread of biological weapons, the commission said in its report.

Graham warned that such measures would be costly, but were necessary.

"The leadership of this country and the world will have to decide how much of a priority ... they place on avoiding the worst weapons in the world getting in the hands of the worst people in the world," he said.

"It is not going to be cheap. It is not going to be accomplished without some sacrifices. It won't be accomplished without putting this issue ahead of some other competing national and international goals. But I think our safety and security depend upon doing so," he added.

Graham said a biological attack was more likely than a nuclear one because it would be easier to carry out.

Biological weapons "are more available," he said. "Anthrax is a natural product of dead animals. Other serious pathogens are available in equally accessible forms."

"There are so many scientists who have the skills to convert a pathogen from benign, helpful purposes into an illicit, very harmful weapon," he added.

But the commission warned that there is also a threat of nuclear terrorism, both because more countries are developing nuclear weapons and because some existing nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals.

"Terrorist organizations are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons," said the report, which was published Tuesday on the Internet and will be officially released Wednesday.

CNN obtained a copy of the report Monday evening.

It cited testimony before the commission from former Sen. Sam Nunn, who said that the "risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding."

The report recommends a range of measures, including increased security and awareness at biological research labs and strengthening international treaties against the spread of biological and nuclear weapons.

"Many biological pathogens and nuclear materials around the world are poorly secured -- and thus vulnerable to theft by those who would put these materials to harmful use, or would sell them on the black market to potential terrorists," the report warned.

The commission expressed particular concern about the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and about Pakistan, which it described as "the intersection of nuclear weapons and terrorism."

While observing that Pakistan is a U.S. ally, the report said, "the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas" in Pakistan. The tribal areas lie in northwest Pakistan where the government exerts little control; the United States says it is a haven for militants from both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan.

Congress created the commission to investigate and report on WMD and terrorism in line with a recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, which compiled a report on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Commissioners heard testimony from more than 250 experts from around the world over the course of their six-month investigation.

CNN's Jeanne Meserve contributed to this report.

Question: Which nations have nuclear weapons?

Question: What is the terror attack?

Question: Which is more likely?

Question: What could kill millions?

Question: What's more likely than a nuclear attack?

Question: when Terrorists with biological weapons could kill millions?

Answer: North Korea,

Answer: biological

Answer: to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one

Answer: Terrorists

Answer: biological weapon

Answer: in the next five years,

Summary:
NEW: Next terror attack on U.S. likely to originate in Pakistan tribal areas, report says .
Terrorists with biological weapons could kill millions, panel's chairman says .
Biological attack more likely than nuclear attack, report says .
Number of nations with nuclear weapons also growing, panel says .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Terrorists are likely to use a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world in the next five years, a blue-ribbon panel assembled by Congress has concluded. Police watch over travelers at New York's Grand Central Terminal before Thanksgiving. They are more likely to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one -- and the results could be devastating, the chairman of the commission told CNN. "The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed," former Sen. Bob Graham said. He cited the flu virus that killed millions of people in 1918 as an example. "Today it is still in the laboratory, but if it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago," he said.  Watch how officials worry about a biological terror attack » The U.S. government "needs to move more aggressively to limit" the spread of biological weapons, the commission said in its report. Graham warned that such measures would be costly, but were necessary. "The leadership of this country and the world will have to decide how much of a priority ... they place on avoiding the worst weapons in the world getting in the hands of the worst people in the world," he said. "It is not going to be cheap. It is not going to be accomplished without some sacrifices. It won't be accomplished without putting this issue ahead of some other competing national and international goals. But I think our safety and security depend upon doing so," he added. Graham said a biological attack was more likely than a nuclear one because it would be easier to carry out. Biological weapons "are more available," he said. "Anthrax is a natural product of dead animals. Other serious pathogens are available in equally accessible forms." "There are so many scientists who have the skills to convert a pathogen from benign, helpful purposes into an illicit, very harmful weapon," he added. But the commission warned that there is also a threat of nuclear terrorism, both because more countries are developing nuclear weapons and because some existing nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals. "Terrorist organizations are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons," said the report, which was published Tuesday on the Internet and will be officially released Wednesday. CNN obtained a copy of the report Monday evening. It cited testimony before the commission from former Sen. Sam Nunn, who said that the "risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding." The report recommends a range of measures, including increased security and awareness at biological research labs and strengthening international treaties against the spread of biological and nuclear weapons. "Many biological pathogens and nuclear materials around the world are poorly secured -- and thus vulnerable to theft by those who would put these materials to harmful use, or would sell them on the black market to potential terrorists," the report warned. The commission expressed particular concern about the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and about Pakistan, which it described as "the intersection of nuclear weapons and terrorism." While observing that Pakistan is a U.S. ally, the report said, "the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas" in Pakistan. The tribal areas lie in northwest Pakistan where the government exerts little control; the United States says it is a haven for militants from both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Congress created the commission to investigate and report on WMD and terrorism in line with a recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, which compiled a report on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Commissioners heard testimony from more than 250 experts from around the world over the course of their six-month investigation. CNN's Jeanne Meserve contributed to this report.

Question: What is more likely than an nuclear attack?

Question: Who could kill millions?

Question: what is likely to originate in Pakistan tribal areas?

Question: What is the danger of biological weapons?

Question: what is growing?

Question: what is the name of panel's chairman?

Answer: a biological weapon

Answer: Terrorists

Answer: "the next terrorist attack against the United States

Answer: mass destruction

Answer: "risk of a nuclear weapon being used

Answer: Bob Graham


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Bush administration hailed North Korea's declaration of its nuclear program as a success for the multilateral diplomacy it engaged in through the six party talks with South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. Workers remove fuel rods on the reactor floor at North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear facility this year. In fact, North Korea's confessions of many of its nuclear sins -- and its shutdown of its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon -- are the closest the international community has come to curbing North Korea's nuclear program. As a result of Pyongyang's handover of the 60-page declaration document -- and Friday's expected destruction of the cooling tower at Yongbyon -- President Bush ordered some sanctions against North Korea lifted and instructed the State Department to remove the reclusive communist nation from U.S. lists of enemies and nations that support terrorism. But as important as what the document says is what it doesn't say. There is no mention of how many weapons North Korea has or where they are hidden. Nor did North Korea admit to a suspected uranium enrichment program or what nuclear secrets it may have shared with Syria. Both issues are reduced in the declaration to "concerns" Pyongyang promises to address down the road. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have pledged a robust verification process to double-check North Korea's claims. And North Korea has promised to allow U.S. inspectors access to the Yongbyon facility and to interview its nuclear experts. But it is far from clear whether Pyongyang will allow the kind of intrusive inspections of its entire nuclear arsenal that the United States will need to get a complete picture of North Korea's program. Congressional Republicans not so sure about Pyongyang The stiffest opposition to the deal is coming from conservative Republicans. Once considered President Bush's strongest allies in confronting North Korea's nuclear ambition, they feel that the Bush administration has let North Korea off the hook, especially when it comes to its enriched uranium program and suspected proliferation to Syria. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed "profound disappointment" over Bush's announcement that North Korea would be coming off the lists of enemies and state sponsors of terrorism. And Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, the top Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, accused President Bush of sacrificing its principles for a foreign policy success. "A decision seemingly has been made that it is more important for the White House to reach a legacy agreement than to get to the bottom of North Korea's nuclear efforts," Hoekstra said. "Lifting sanctions and removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism flies in the face of history and rewards its brutal dictator for shallow gestures." Rep. Ed Royce, R-California, called North Korea's declaration late and incomplete, alleging that North Korea built a nuclear facility for Syria, considered a terrorist state by the United States, while the nuclear negotiations were ongoing. That, he said, was proof that Pyongyang can't be trusted. "How do you have a meaningful declaration of your nuclear program without saying how many bombs you have?" Royce asked. "This is a signal to other proliferating regimes that nuclear weapons will be rewarded without ever having to give them up." Democrats, who once criticized Bush for not talking directly to North Korea about its nuclear program, are cautiously supportive of the deal. Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the North's submission of a declaration "encouraging." Even former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, praised the Bush administration, saying "engaging our enemies can pay dividends." But Kerry added, "historians will long wonder why this administration did not directly engage North Korea before Pyongyang gathered enough material for several nuclear weapons, tested a nuclear device and the missiles to deliver them." Are we headed down the same road with Iran? In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush termed Iraq, North Korea and Iran the "axis of evil," saying they were "arming

Question: Who says the Bush administration has let Pyongyang off the hook?

Question: Who may be headed down the same road with Iran?

Question: What didn't North Korea admit to?

Question: What did North Korea not admit to?

Question: Who has been let off the hook?

Answer: conservative Republicans.

Answer: North Korea

Answer: suspected uranium enrichment program

Answer: a suspected uranium enrichment program or

Answer: North Korea

Summary:
Just as important as what the nuclear declaration says is what it doesn't say .
North Korea didn't admit to uranium enrichment or sharing secrets with Syria .
Many Republicans say Bush administration has let Pyongyang off the hook .
U.S. may be headed down the same road with Iran .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Bush administration misused intelligence to build a case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report issued Thursday. President Bush didn't request intelligence reports about the post-war situation, the Senate panel's report says. The White House exploited its ability to declassify intelligence selectively to bolster its case for war, the committee chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-West Virginia, said in the report. Senior officials disclosed and discussed sensitive intelligence reports that supported the administration's policy objectives and kept out of public discourse information that did not, he said. The report also found that the administration misled the American people about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "Policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments" about contacts between the then-Iraqi leader and Osama bin Laden's group, "and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al Qaeda," the report said. "Statements and implications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al Qaeda had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al Qaeda with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence," according to the committee's exhaustive report on prewar intelligence. The top Republican on the committee dismissed its findings as "partisan gamesmanship." "It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the committee's findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence," said Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri. The White House also rejected the report as old news. "I know this is another report, and I'm sure that they put a lot of considerable thought into it, but this is a subject that has been gone over many many, many times, and I don't know of anything that's particularly new in it," said spokeswoman Dana Perino, who said she had not yet read it. She said the White House relied on the same information as the rest of the world, admitting that it was wrong but denying that Bush had set out to mislead the country. White House claims that Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction were partially backed by available intelligence, the report found, but did not reflect disputes within the intelligence community. The CIA, among others, believed Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but the Department of Energy disagreed, the report said. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the invasion. The report also took the administration to task for its predictions about the aftermath of the invasion, including Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. Bush and Cheney did not request intelligence reports about the post-war situation, and their public statements did not reflect doubts and uncertainties in the intelligence community, the report said. The report comes days after former White House press spokesman Scott McClellan published a book saying Bush decided on war with Iraq soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks. "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East. Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," McClellan wrote in his memoir, "What Happened." Current and former White House officials have dismissed McClellan's accusations, saying he was not in a position to know about top-level White House decision-making before the war when he was deputy press secretary. The Senate committee chairman slammed the White House in a statement marking the release of the long-awaited report. "Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced," Rockefeller said Thursday. "Unfortunately, our committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence. In making the case for war,

Question: What did the report say?

Question: What does the report say the Bush administration misused?

Question: What spokesperson called the findings "old news"?

Question: What contacts was the public deceived about?

Question: What was the public misled about?

Question: Who did the panel say the public was mislead about contacts between?

Question: Who was mislead about Saaddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

Question: Whose administration misused intelligence?

Question: What did the administration do?

Answer: President Bush didn't request intelligence

Answer: intelligence

Answer: Dana Perino,

Answer: between the then-Iraqi leader and Osama bin Laden's group,

Answer: contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Answer: Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Answer: American people

Answer: Bush

Answer: misused intelligence

Summary:
Report says Bush administration misused intelligence in run-up to Iraq war .
Administration selectively declassified information to bolster case, report says .
Panel: Public misled about contacts between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda .
White House spokeswoman calls findings old news .