COPIAPO, Chile | The makeshift tent city at the entrance to the San Jose gold and copper mine houses relatives of the 33 miners trapped by a cave-in nearly half a mile underground. For more than a month, they have been enduring frigid nights while they keep vigil for their loved ones.

NewsHour special correspondent Tom Bearden, producer David Stephen, photographer Brian Gill, and editor Tim Smith have spent the last week in Chile's Atacama Desert, reporting on the trapped miners. Watch their next report on Monday's NewsHour, and in the meantime, view a slide show narrated by Bearden:

(View a larger-scale version of the slide show.)

Listen to the Audio

NewsHour special correspondent Tom Bearden reports on and photographs the families waiting for word about the trapped miners in Copiapo, Chile.

Sept. 11, 2010, marks nine years since terror attacks struck the Pentagon, Shanksville, Pa., and the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. This collection of aerial and satellite photos, taken from 1954 to 2009, reveal both stark and subtle changes around the World Trade Center site.

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE | President Obama met with the press in the East Wing of the White House for the first time in three months. During the presser that lasted over an hour, the president addressed concerns about the economy and the possible threat of the Quran burning in Florida. Kwame Holman reports on the wide-ranging news conference.

DEBATING RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE | Nine years after the 9/11 attacks, a national conversation has arisen surrounding tolerance of religious and cultural differences in America. Jeffrey Brown moderates a conversation with four different perspectives.

NEW PROGRAM ENSURES TOP NOTCH TREATMENT FOR WARRIORS | A new military program in Fort Hood, Texas warrants top of the line treatment for wounded soldiers coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Ray Suarez reports.

SHIELDS AND BROOKS WEEKLY ANALYSIS | Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze this week's top news.

Friday's anchors are Jim Lehrer and Judy Woodruff. Hari Sreenivasan has the day's other top news stories and look at the Web features. On The Rundown, a slideshow of photos from Fort Hood narrated by Ray Suarez. Also, a photo essay that illustrates how the World Trade Center changed over time using images over the past 55 years.

Plus on Art Beat, Jeffrey Brown talks to historian Sean Wilentz who is the author of a new book about musician Bob Dylan.

Sean Wilentz grew up in Greenwich Village at the height of its bohemian influence in the 1950s and 60s. At 13, he attended his first concert performed by a young Bob Dylan. Part of the generation first shaped by the influence of Dylan's music, Wilentz went on became a Professor of History at Princeton, the official historian of Bob Dylan's website, and now, the author of a new non-fiction book, "Bob Dylan in America," which combines biography, social history and cultural commentary about the musician.

I recently spoke with Wilentz by phone in Princeton, NJ:

Hear an excerpt from the audio book version of 'Bob Dylan in America':

 
A full transcript is after the jump.

JEFFREY BROWN: Hello, I'm Jeffrey Brown and welcome to Art Beat on the PBS Newshour. Today I'm joined by Sean Wilentz, professor of history at Princeton and author of the new book, "Bob Dylan in America." Welcome to you.

SEAN WILENTZ: Jeffrey, it's great to be here.

JEFFREY BROWN: The first thing that strikes me is that this isn't a classic biography in the normal sense. What is it? What do you think it is?

SEAN WILENTZ: It's my effort to take the work of someone I've admired and learned from for very many years and to think about it in a way that brings to bear my own skills as a historian. And as you say it is not a standard biography. It's not really any biography of any kind of, although there is biographical material. Rather, it's an attempt to try to understand something. And the question that I raised was, What does Bob Dylan have to tell us about America, about the time that I grew up, the culture that formed me, in effect? And then, What does America, the wider context, have to tell us about Bob Dylan?

JEFFREY BROWN: There are also elements of autobiography, of yourself as part of this. You bring in your skills as a historian, but you're also bringing in some of your own experience.

SEAN WILENTZ: That's right. I had a very lucky childhood, a very strange childhood in many ways, because my dad ran a bookshop right in the heart of Greenwich Village, which was a kind of literary crossroads, and some of the musicians stopped by, as well. But my youth in the late '50s, early '60s was very much in the world that Bob Dylan first emerged out of. I've had connections with him and his work going back to when I was, well, I went to my first Bob Dylan concert when I was 13 years old. So I put that in the book because I couldn't keep it out, but I wanted to so do in a way that was -- I didn't want to make it a memoir by any means. I don't know the man, so why would I want to write a memoir?

JEFFREY BROWN: Now the historian in you is making these connections to particular moments in music and social history; early chapters, Aaron Copeland and music of the '40s, especially the leftist political music and ethos, and then of course the Allen Ginsberg and the Beats. Later you make clear, though, that these aren't always direct influences. That's kind of an interesting thing you're trying to do here. So what is that you were looking for in looking to these connections?

SEAN WILENTZ: Some of them are direct. In the case of Aaron Copeland, as far as I know, the two men never met, although Dylan has used some of Copeland's music as a kind of musical overture to his own concerts from time to time going back to the early part of the 2000s. But there I wanted to see if I could connect Dylan not to an individual or even several individuals but to a whole world that came out of the '30s and '40s that very much shaped people who directly influenced him. But by simply looking at the same characters again -- Woody Guthrie, Pete Segar, those people -- that story has been told and been told in way that didn't emphasize this broader world of the popular front -- you know, left composers in the 1930s and '40s, which Copeland and Pete Segar's father, for example, were very much a part of the downtown New York left wing musical world. In fact Segar's father wrote a review of a Copeland concert for the Daily Worker of all things and it was a rave review. Now that was a point of contact between the two worlds, which got my mind going, so it wasn't just happenstance, there were connections. They weren't directly influential on Dylan, although who knows when Dylan first heard Copeland, but the idea of using folk music and American folk music and raising it to a higher level of art, now he didn't think of that because of Aaron Copeland, but both of them did it and they did have contacts with specific individuals, so it's kind of an experiment, Jeffrey, to try and see if a writer can do that, so that it's not just a straight, you know, Woody Guthrie begat Bob Dylan begat Bruce Springsteen. It's not that kind of genealogy. It's rather a cultural genealogy.

JEFFREY BROWN: Is there a Dylan that emerges that perhaps surprised when you tried to make these various connections direct and otherwise?

SEAN WILENTZ: I don't know that I was surprised by it as much as I found it more, it was richer. I understood what I thought I'd understood before, but in deeper ways, so that in the Copeland case, for example, here are a couple of Lithuanian decedent Jews, one from Brooklyn and the other from Minnesota, but they come through an American experience, and when you look at them full of their differences, certain things come out, which are clearer, and that's helped me understand a little bit more about how Dylan not only got his start, how powerful that popular front current was in American cultural when he was growing up in the '40s and '50s, but also how it's another example of what Dylan actually did, which was to come into American culture, see parts of it that were thought of as common or popular and raise it to another level. Copeland did that in a very different way, but seeing that Copeland did it helped me understand how Dylan did it on his own in a much richer way.

JEFFREY BROWN: There are a lot of interesting, great set pieces that you have in the book. I'm thinking particularly of the "Blonde on Blonde" recording in Nashville and in New York, but I want to pick out later, the more recent Dylan, because it's something I tried to understand myself, I guess, because it's harder to grasp in a way. You pick up on "Love and Theft" and that's when I just went back, I was listening to it again this morning -- extremely varied styles. You refer to the modern minstrel, I think is the term you used. What does that mean? What do you see in this Dylan that emerged even in the last 10 years with a kind of rejuvenation?

SEAN WILENTZ: Yeah, Dylan had kind of come to, he had said himself the end of his rope at the end of the '80s, and then began a period of recalibration or resurgence or renewal beginning in the early '90s and has produced a body of work, which is a departure, but also has continuities, and that's been really since his album that came out 1997 called "Time Out of Mind," and then I think really got going with "Love and Theft," and that style, that modern minstrel style, it's a permutation, it's a change in what he's really always been doing which is to take an American song, an American folk music, and not just American folk music, and to inhabit it and to turn it into something that is his own. What I think we are seeing now is a much more self-conscious, much denser appropriation and rearrangement of shards of American poetry, not just American poetry, ancient classical Roman poetry, and American music as wide and as broad as songs like the famous old folk song called "Rosie," which shows up in the song "Mississippi," to Bing Crosby, things you wouldn't necessarily associate with Bob Dylan. So this modern minstrel, that is to say, it's a matter of imitation but also reinvention of those things and to turn it into something else, into something new that's been the hallmark of Dylan's work, in particular over the last 10, 15 years or so. By the time Dylan hit the mid '80s I think that his career and his music was kind of spinning out of control. And I think he reconnected with his own roots, his own soul, his musical soul, when he released a couple of acoustical albums at the beginning of the '90s and then he was off and running having found something new again, and that's what we're hearing now.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Let me ask you one last thing, and this may be a kind of -- it's the historian question, I supposed. You make all the connections, when you pile up the facts of a particular person, and yet does that really explain the person that emerges as you know the kind of generous Bob Dylan. A lot of people at that time had the similar influences and experience and yet there is one guy who emerges.

SEAN WILENTZ: Oh, well, that's two questions, I think, Jeffrey, actually. One is, Do you ever get the Bob Dylan or did you get his essence? No, of course not. I wouldn't have that arrogance to try and do so. You are talking about a great artist and, you know, no one has ever pinned down the full Yeats or the real Joyce or the real anything. All you can do is show certain clues and directions, illusions. You hope to broaden your understanding, and then readers' understanding. So there is never going to be a definitive one, but, you know, I saw something new. And as you say, other people have had these connections, so what's so special about Bob Dylan? Well what's so special about Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan. I That's what makes true artistic genius, and there is such a thing as someone who can hear what everybody else has heard and make of it something that is startling, something that is extraordinary. And I have no explanation for what makes an artistic genius. I'm just happy to be around it and I'm happy to be living in the same world at the same time as Bob Dylan.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. The new book is "Bob Dylan in America." Sean Wilentz, thanks for talking to us.

SEAN WILENTZ: Great pleasure. See you later, Jeffrey.

JEFFREY BROWN: And I'm Jeffrey Brown and thanks to all for joining us on Art Beat.

"For an instant, each tower left its imprint in the air, a phantom of pulverized concrete marking a place that then became a memory."--William Langewiesche, "American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center"

To mark the ninth anniversary the Sept. 11 attacks, we have gathered 25 aerial images of lower Manhattan, spanning more than half a century. The images reveal an always-changing city, and the visible efforts to "unbuild" the World Trade Center after the attacks.

The aerial images can be viewed as an animated time-lapse slide show or as individual slides.

Ray Suarez reports at Ford Hood. Photo by Daniel Sagalyn

Fort Hood is a remarkable place. One day recently began with a bowl of cereal at my kitchen table in Washington, and ended that night with dinner in Killeen, Texas. It made for a bracing slap upside the head... a departure from one world and sudden entry into another.

If you've ever visited a stateside military facility, much will seem familiar. What makes Fort Hood stand out is the sheer scale of everything.

As the U.S. Army has reduced the number of bases it has concentrated more personnel and equipment at an archipelago of superbases strung across the country, and this is one of them. Some 60,000 active duty men and women are stationed here, a number that rises and falls with the rhythm of deployments to combat zones.

The place relies on the work of thousands more civilians working in support, and thousands more spouses, children, and other dependents live on massive base housing complexes surrounding the fort.

During the Cold War, Western reporting from the Soviet Union often talked about "military cities," complexes closed to all but a small number of citizens and almost all foreigners. What we've created in Killeen is a military city all right, but one with an American-style openness about its business and its mission.

Bumper stickers proclaim "Army Wife." Banks, restaurants, car dealers, and other businesses proudly wear their dedication to soldiers and their families by proclaiming it from their windows. Other places in America simply aren't like Fort Hood.

"We've asked 1 percent of our population to do 100 percent of the fighting. This is new. We haven't done this before, for so many years," said Maxine Trent, a psychologist who works with soldiers and their families. She's right about that.

The weather is, to put it charitably, terrible. It's cold in the winter, and in summer becomes an anvil pounded by the hammer of a relentless sun. For kicks, Mother Nature can also dish out storms of freakish ferocity, with the added bonus of being able to watch them approach for a few hours across the big flat plains and gently rolling hills.

The thermometer on the rental car dash climbed through the afternoon as I made my way from Dallas. Just north of Waco I pulled over for a first rate beef brisket sandwich, with the dash reading 98 degrees. Just over an hour later as I pulled into Killeen it read, wait for it, 107. When I opened my door the hot, dry air rushed in. Think of opening the oven to look in on something baking. I was about to enter the oven and work in it for a few days. This is, I thought, just the kind of weather to get a young enlistee into the martial spirit.

Not to worry. Barely 20 minutes later I watched from safely inside a lobby as the trees in a parking lot were bent nearly horizontal by a ferocious wind, and hailstones rattled the windows and gathered in the grass. The weather is the topic of much conversation on and around the base. We were lucky, many said, to be here now, when last week it was really bad.

Out there in the great big world, I am not often called "sir." In the conventions of the television news business, I am expected to call people "doctor," "professor," "senator," "secretary," or "bishop," while they get to call me "Ray." With a necktie that put me firmly on the road to "sir-ness" and the recent addition of gray on the top of my head and the bottom of my chin, I was unprepared for the onslaught of courteous deference that comes from being on a military post, and being on a military post in the South.

I thought of my son, 21 years old, about to begin his fourth year at college, as I watched the lanky young men at the base food court. Goofing around amongst themselves, and treating others with great respect, they were a curious mix of lightness and fun and great seriousness about the day's work. The mess hall of the 21st century featured some of the best known names in American fast food, and others that are known only to those who eat in forts.

In ways large and small the military really could become a separate and distinct society. I'm no sociologist, but I suspect from years of covering stateside debate, base realignment, and military procurement, that the separation is growing wider. That might not be good for the military itself, or the society as a whole.

I headed to Fort Hood already appreciating and admiring the people who decide that military service is something they want to do, either for a brief time in their lives or as a career. At the same time it rankles when I hear politicians say, as they so often do, that the people who serve "are the best we have," or are "the best among us."

It rankles because I've always thought the greatest strength of a military force in a democracy is that it is who we are. Not better. Not worse. But rather, service people are ideally a distillation of all the strengths and weaknesses of a continent-sized country of more than 300 million people.

Some of the people who join are unequivocally drawn by the profession of arms. They want to fight for America, simple as that. Others are embracing the structure and discipline the service offers as an alternative to an undisciplined life. Still others are drawn by the benefits of spending time in service: the education and opportunities can change the course of a life.

This may be part and parcel of the transition to an all-volunteer military. We may be using hyperbole to extol the small minority of Americans who are willing to do what most of us are not: to agree, if asked, to use lethal force in the service of national aims and take the risk of having it used against them.

For me, a middle-aged American who came of service age during the Vietnam war, one of the most attractive aspects of the people I met at Fort Hood was their very ordinariness. They are tall, short, men, women, rural, urban, skinny, buffed, chubby, provincial, worldly, with accents and life experience from every corner of the country. To make their experience so separate and distinct from the life of all Americans, to make soldiers a tiny subculture in our common life seems to me a bad idea.

I came away from Texas reassured that this most American of institutions is not a separate society in 2010. It is, still, very much part of us... worthy of the thanks of a nation that doesn't always remember to be grateful.

Watch for Ray Suarez's report on the wounded warriors program at Ford Hood on Friday's NewsHour. In the meantime, here's a slide show of the people he met:

(View a larger-scale version of the slide show.)

Like many of you, I have become slightly addicted to the voice embedded in my dashboard that tells me where and how to drive my car.

If I miss an exit, it grows silent for a moment before calmly advising me that it is "recalculating."

If only there were a global positioning app for news and politics.

If there were such a thing, the White House would have been prepared when recently departed budget director Peter Orszag blindsided his old boss by disagreeing about tax cuts.

If there were such a thing, the president's repeated efforts to change course to focus on the economy would not so frequently and almost predictably be thrown off course by New York Imams, Middle East peace talks, tea party protests - and, this week, a small-time Florida preacher's plan to burn Qurans on his lawn.

If there were such a thing, we in the news business would not leap so eagerly after every single one of these bright shiny objects whenever they intruded on our peripheral vision. "That's the world we live in right now," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as she joined a clutch of senior administration officials in denouncing the spotlight grabbing Florida pastor Terry Jones. "It doesn't in any way represent America or Americans or American government or American religious or political leadership."

It also did not represent the topic the administration has so doggedly been seeking to return to -- the economy.

With polls sliding, jobless rates rising and a tax cut debate gathering steam, distraction is the last thing the White House and Congress need.

They wanted this week to talk about boosting small business and championing the middle class. They wanted to set the course for a fall campaign that already seems to be skidding off course for Democrats and veering toward tea party domination for Republicans.

That is the likely reason so many of the president's political opponents - from Sarah Palin to Mitch McConnell to John McCain - have also joined the chorus of complaints against Pastor Jones. They, too, can read the polls. And both parties are in peril when they appear to be paying attention to anything other than the nation's stubborn economic plight. The voters are clearly on the verge of declaring a pox on everyone's house.

But it is difficult to look away from a train wreck, especially one that could actually result in global violence. And then, when Donald Trump stepped in and offered to buy the lower Manhattan site of the proposed Islamic center, the whole thing showed signs of becoming a dangerous reality show.

You can bet that all sides are recalculating just about now, counting down the less than eight weeks until Americans go to the polls and deliver a primal scream at the ballot box.

No matter who controls the House and the Senate after the dust settles, that is sure to sting.

Gwen's Take is cross-posted with the Washington Week website. Tune in to Friday's roundtable for political analysis and more.

President Obama said Friday at a nationally televised news conference that economic progress has been "painfully slow," but investments in business, education and technology will help make America more competitive in the global economy.

"While the economy is growing again...the hole in the recession left was huge and progress has been painfully slow," he said.

The president touted a series of proposed tax credits and programs to let businesses write off investments in 2011, along with a six-year plan to rebuild roads, railways and airport runways, and put people in the construction industry back to work.

President Obama also named Austan Goolsbee as the new head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers to replace Christina Romer, who returned to her old teaching post at the University of California at Berkeley.

Goolsbee is "not just a brilliant economist, he's someone who has a deep appreciation of how the economy affects everyday people," Mr. Obama said.

Watch the first part of the White House news conference:

Updated at 12:12 p.m.

President Obama also spoke of Saturday's anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, and a Florida pastor's threats to burn the Quran to mark the event.

"The idea that someone would burn the sacred texts of another religion is contrary to what this country stands for," said Mr. Obama. The threats put U.S. soldiers abroad in harm's way and is a recruiting tool for al-Qaida, he said.

Afghanistan served as a base for al-Qaida to launch the attacks that killed 3,000, the president said, and U.S. forces are there to dismantle it as a base for further assaults.

When asked how he could continue dealing with a government under Afghan President Hamid Karzai that is accused of corruption, President Obama said everytime he speaks with Karzai, he says the only way to have a stable government is if the Afghan people feel it is looking out for them, and that means eliminating corruption.

"Is it going to happen overnight? Probably not," he said.

On the Mideast peace process, the president said he remains hopeful that talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will be constructive, though there are "enormous hurdles."

He said he urged the two leaders to start thinking about how they can help the other succeed, rather than making them fail.

Watch the entire Q&A portion of the press conference here:

The installation 'Small Buddha (1990)' by Korean-born US artist Nam June Paik is on display at the Museum Kunst Palast in Duesseldorf, western Germany, on September 9, 2010. From September 11 to November 21, 2010, the museum presents the 'Nam June Paik' exhibition in collaboration with the Tate Liverpool museum. The show is part of the 2010 Quadriennale Art Festival. (Photo by Horst Ossinger/ AFP/ Getty Images

*

British artists come out in protest against possible, major national arts budget cuts, via the Associated Press.

The Guardian has an animation by David Shrigley created as a response to potential cuts.

*

A new incarnation of Roger Ebert's "At the Movies" will return to its origins at WTTW on PBS in January, via Roger Ebert's Journal at the Chicago Sun-Times.

*

The New York Times asks why classical music isn't part of the Jewish religious tradition (despite contributing so many luminaries to the genre).

Plus, technophile soul-seekers wishing to engage in the ancient tradition of self- and spiritual reflection between the Jewish high holidays now get a convenient, digital venue, via 10Q.

Watch live streaming coverage of President Obama's news conference at 11:00a.m. ET here on the Rundown. And tune in to Friday's NewsHour for analysis from Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others.

Austan Goolsbee is expected to be named chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

President Obama is expected to choose one of his longtime economic advisers, Austan Goolsbee, to be the chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers. The president will announce the appointment at the beginning of his news conference on Friday.

Goolsbee, already a member of the council and a University of Chicago professor of economics, would replace Christina Romer, who left the administration to return to her teaching position at the University of California-Berkeley.

For more about President Obama's news conference (as well as news on a federal judge's decision to strike down "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), check out The Morning Line, our daily post on politics.

Some information on Gooldbee, via the New York Times' Jackie Calmes, who profiles him here:

Goolsbee has already been confirmed by the Senate as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers and will not need approval to become the chairman.

He would be the youngest chairman since Arthur M. Okun held the job from 1968 to 1969 under President Lyndon Johnson.

Goolsbee has had tense relations with Larry Summers, the director of the White House National Economic Council.

Goolsbee has a free-market bent and opposed bailing out Chrysler.

He has friendly relationship with the president. He was an economics professor at the University of Chicago when Mr. Obama taught at its law school. And he provided economic advice to Mr. Obama during his run for U.S. Senate and for president.

Goolsbee is an amateur comic.

Florida Pastor Reconsiders Plans to Burn Quran

Terry Jones, the leader of Florida church who has planned to hold a Quran-burning event on Saturday, told NBC's "Today" show Friday morning that he won't follow through with the burning if he's able to meet Saturday with the organizers behind a mosque planned near Ground Zero in New York.

Imam Muhammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, told CBS' "The Early Show" he had a commitment to meet with Jones and the imam in New York.

Gas Line Explosion Destroys California Neighborhood

A natural gas line explosion devastated a San Bruno neighborhood outside San Francisco Thursday evening, killing at least one person, injuring more than 20 others and igniting a blaze that destroyed 53 homes and damaged 120 more, authorities said.

The Los Angeles Times reports that at least six people were killed. The San Bruno chief told the Times Friday morning that he expected the toll to rise as more homes are searched.

Here are some first-person accounts via the Associated Press:

President Obama is scheduled to speak to reporters Friday in a nationally televised news conference from the White House. Photo by Olivier Douliery/Pool/Getty Images.

It's been more than three months since President Obama has held a solo news conference with White House reporters. The news universe looks quite different now than it did then.

On May 27, 2010, President Obama took questions from 10 reporters. All but three questions were about the BP oil spill crisis, which the administration was struggling to get its arms around at the time. Other topics included Afghanistan, immigration and what the administration offered to Joe Sestak to stay out of the Pennsylvania primary against Arlen Specter.

Not one question was about the economy. Of course, the news conference took place at a time when most observers thought the economy was on a far sturdier path to recovery than has proven to be the case.

It was also the last White House press conference at which veteran (and now retired) reporter Helen Thomas asked a question. She didn't pulling her punches: "Mr. President, when are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism, 'If we don't go there, they'll all come here.'"

On Friday morning, the president takes to the East Room to cap off a week of intense public focus on the economy, his latest proposals to boost job growth and his stepped up campaign role with 53 days to go before the midterm elections.

The president will begin with remarks announcing Austan Goolsbee as his new chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Goolsbee has been a key economic adviser to Mr. Obama during his first two years in the White House, as well as throughout his presidential campaign.

Goolsbee replaces Christina Romer, who left the administration to return to her teaching position at the University of California-Berkeley and who is widely rumored to be in line for a possible Federal Reserve post on the West Coast.

As for the president's stepped up campaign role, the Democratic National Committee announced Thursday that President Obama plans to headline four rallies in key midterm (and 2012 presidential) states. The Obama road show will be in Madison, Wisc., on Sept. 28, Philadelphia on Oct. 10, Ohio on Oct. 17 and Las Vegas on October 22.

Five things we don't yet know that we may know by the end of the press conference:

1. Why didn't President Obama propose his business-friendly tax proposals, such as writing off capital investments and tax breaks for research and development, earlier in the economic downturn?

2. How much wiggle room exists for President Obama on a possible short-term extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy? (Gallup has the American people in the president's corner on this one.)

3. Does the president believe he's presiding over an Islamophobic nation?

4. After two years of nearly rock solid partisan warfare in Washington, can the president provide any assurances that if Republicans do take control of Congress that he'll be able to work with them?

5. If Rahm Emanuel feels he needs to make a decision about whether to run for mayor of Chicago prior to the November midterms, would the president provide his blessing for him to leave the White House before November 2?

PALIN POWER

Could Christine O'Donnell be the next Joe Miller? Sarah Palin is betting on it.

The former Republican vice presidential nominee endorsed O'Donnell Thursday in her insurgent bid to defeat the party's establishment pick, Congressman Mike Castle, in Delaware's GOP Senate primary next Tuesday.

Palin made the announcement on Sean Hannity's radio program and further explained her support of the Tea Party-backed O'Donnell in a Facebook post:

"Please support Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. She will support efforts for America's energy security, patient-centered health care reform, cutting government waste, and letting the private sector thrive and prosper! We can't afford "more of the same" in Washington. Christine will help usher in the real change we need to get America on the right track."

O'Donnell responded by thanking Palin on Twitter: "@SarahPalinUSA's endorsement brings an infusion of fresh energy. Help storm the Castle!"

The Castle campaign dismissed the impact Palin's last-minute endorsement would have on the race:

"Tuesday's primary will be decided by grassroots Republican voters here in Delaware, not out-of-state interest groups who are working to control the outcome. Mike Castle has overwhelming support from respected conservative Delawareans, including former Gov. Pete DuPont and Judge Bill Lee, who know that Castle is the true fiscal conservative and the only candidate who can win this seat for Republicans in November," said spokeswoman Kate Dickens.

Palin's endorsement of Tea Party favorite Joe Miller in Alaska's Republican Senate primary was seen as a key factor in his surprise victory over incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski last month.

JUDGE RULES AGAINST "DON'T ASK"

A federal judge in California ruled Thursday that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled the 1993 law barring openly gay individuals from serving in the military violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians.

Phillips said the government failed to show the policy was necessary for military readiness and unit cohesion. Instead, she said it has a "direct and deleterious effect" on military recruitment efforts and required service members with critical skills and training to be discharged.

Phillips said she will issue an order to halt the policy, but would give the government two weeks to appeal the ruling.

The decision only adds to the pressure already on Congress to address the "Don't Ask" policy. The House voted to repeal the act in May, but the legislation has slowed in the Senate.

President Obama called on Congress to do away with the policy in his State of the Union address earlier this year. That was soon followed by an announcement from Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the Pentagon would conduct a year-long review to certify that changing the policy would not disrupt military effectiveness.

"ANGER, APATHY AND AMNESIA"

At a fundraiser in Atlanta Thursday night, former president Bill Clinton defined the 2010 election cycle with 3 A's. "To have an election based on anger, apathy and amnesia is nuts," he said according to the Associated Press. "That's exactly what's going on all over America today. This election should be about what are we going to do now."

Clinton went on to call the current national mood "a crazy time."

This is a stump speech in process, but a critical one to watch. It's likely that Clinton will end up campaigning in more competitive House districts this fall than President Obama, because much of the battle for the House is taking place in districts where Clinton may still be able to make an impact and where Mr. Obama is not all that welcome.

"When you make an important decision in your life when you're angry, there's an 80 percent chance you'll make a mistake," Clinton admonished the gathered Democrats Thursday night.

He was there raising money for Mike Thurmond, the Democrat seeking to oust GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson in the most long shot of races that is on neither the national Republican or Democratic map.

Listen to the Audio

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey speaks with Judy Woodruff about his new book "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto." This is the first in a two-part series of book conversations with thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight: a book conversation about the Tea Party movement. It was recorded earlier.

Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey is chair of the conservative group FreedomWorks, and he's the co-author of the book "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto." Dick Armey, it's good to have you with us.

DICK ARMEY, former Republican House majority leader: Thank you. It's nice to be here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Tell us, first of all, what is the core of the Tea Party? What does it believe?

DICK ARMEY: I think, you talk to them, they believe that the country is in serious danger by a government that's so excessive in its spending that it threatens the insolvency of the nation and their personal liberties. So, these are -- we call them small government conservatives, constitutionally limited, small government conservatives, who think the government has strayed to the point of peril for the nation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you write in the book about how the goal is to take over the Republican Party, that that's the first goal. Are you on track to do that this year?

DICK ARMEY: Yes, I think the idea is to reform the Republican Party, make it the party of constitutionally limited, small government, personal liberty, and make it, in fact, the answer to the Democrat Party, rather than what is perceived lately by most of the folks I am working with today, as the echo to the Democrat Party. So...

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when you say -- so, is there a distinction between taking it over and reforming it?

DICK ARMEY: Well, the idea is -- I mean, there's a sort of practical politics here. You start with the observation 99 percent of all people who hold office will be as Democrats or Republicans. So, that's not going to change. The question is, will the Republicans in office be the constitutionally limited, Reagan Republicans, small government Republicans, that we need them to be?

Well, they will be if we require that of them. They can't win the majority without this movement. It's the biggest swing vote on the field. And we're saying -- you know, we're not going to come be like you. We insist you be like we need you to be.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But are you saying that the current leadership of the Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Republican governors, Republican House and Senate committees, that they're not doing an adequate job of leading the party?

DICK ARMEY: We just find that political parties are not reliable institutions from a policy point of view. They're whimsical. Their -- their motives, their objectives, their defined purposes are always given by political definition. We want the decisions to be driven by policy definition. We think, in the early days of the Contract With America, which was a top-down, inside job...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Back in the 1990s.

DICK ARMEY: Yes. They stayed true to policy goals and objectives. And we were proud of them for a while. Now we're an outside-the-body, bottom-up group. And we're saying, we're going to reform your behavior to make you once again behave in such a way that we can dare to trust you and continue to support you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you're already showing some successes out on the campaign trail. Some of the candidates that the Tea Party has supported, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado, and others. Now, Democrats are saying, these candidates may be acceptable inside a Republican primary, but they're not going to do as well when they face a general election, a broader electorate.

DICK ARMEY: Well, right now, in this primary season, this movement's having its greatest impact on who is winning Republican primaries. In the general election, just a little bit from now, this movement will define the -- at the margin, define the outcomes that puts the Democrat Party in the minority in the House and quite possibly in the Senate. And they know that. So, they're -- right now, they're a very panicky party.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you ready to make a forecast for November?

DICK ARMEY: Well, I have no doubt about that the Republicans will be the majority in the House. Our only question is, will they be a conservative majority or a Republican majority?

A Republican majority is not what we're looking for. We're looking for a conservative majority. It's possible -- and I attach now a significant probability, above 50 percent -- that the Republicans could be in the majority in the Senate. But the Republicans in the Senate will be a more conservative group than they are now. And I have no doubt about it, that at the -- after the elections of 2012, there will be a Republican in the White House. Now, that's settled, and President Obama's already decided that.

So, the only way the Democrats, in my estimation, could keep the White House in 2012 would be to replace him in their primary. I'm not sure they're up to that task.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We will see.

DICK ARMEY: We will see. I mean, but now I'm on the record. You can...

JUDY WOODRUFF: You are. You're on the record. The book, again, "Give Us Liberty," written by you and a co-author. You're with this organization FreedomWorks. A lot in here, Dick Armey, about organizing community -- down at the community level, what to do to get people to rallies, using different social media. It's clear you're focused on candidates and winning elections. Are those candidates prepared to govern?

DICK ARMEY: Well, absolutely. First of all, I mean, right now, one thing we see in the current leadership in the House and the Senate, even the White House, it doesn't take a lot of preparation to get by the job. You know, they're not doing all that good. But the fact of the matter is, this book was written because these folks are so badly mischaracterized. And, yes, it is...

JUDY WOODRUFF: These folks, meaning the...

DICK ARMEY: These folks that are known as...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Tea Party activists.

DICK ARMEY: ... the Tea Party activists. They're probably the kindest, gentlest, most gentle souls we ever saw. We had a million of them in town last September, and they left the town cleaner than they found it. I don't see that happening very often.

But the fact of the matter is, we are guided by the notion hard work beats daddy's money. There are so many people that in the political punditry look at the comparative checkbooks of candidates and say, well, this guy will win, that guy will lose. And we believe the guy with more money isn't necessarily the winner, if he goes against a well-organized activist organization, like we can equip candidates.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Once the Tea Party -- if the Tea Party gets its way, takes over the country, what changes would you like to see made? What agencies would you do away with? What programs would you cut? What would be the ideal government under a Tea Party rule?

DICK ARMEY: Well, first of all, yes, there would have -- there has to be a comprehensive reduction in the size of the government. Government is just so big, so incompetent and inefficient, it's choking out the private sector. Now, everybody agrees this can't be done unless you're willing to deal with entitlement spending.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That's Social Security and Medicare.

DICK ARMEY: Like Social Security and Medicare. And so I think one of the first things we would argue, let all subscription to government support and assistance programs be voluntary. Nobody should be required to take a government assistance. I think it is amazing that the government set themselves up as the insurer of first resort for everybody over 65, and they can't afford that.

And yet they won't let people just voluntarily say, well, I don't need your help. I don't want your help. Let me off the hook. So, there's all kinds of punitive sanctions to anybody who says no. So, if, in fact, you just let that happen, you solve the long-term financial liquidity problem, because the unfunded liabilities voluntarily take themselves off the list.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The argument to that -- against that is that making it voluntary would destroy these programs, that they couldn't exist if they were voluntary.

DICK ARMEY: Yes. Well, that's, of course -- I mean, again, if, in fact, there's no demand for you, so what?

The fact of the matter is, nobody's going to voluntarily give up government-provided health care unless they're confident in their ability to provide for themselves. So -- and, if you can provide for yourself, why in the world should your children and grandchildren be taxed to support you with your assistance?

JUDY WOODRUFF: What...

DICK ARMEY: But, again, I just am a little bit appalled by those folks that are so committed to a government program that they will say to a citizen, you sacrifice your liberty, so I don't have to worry about me losing my program.

Is it about programs or persons?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Dick Armey, it's very good to talk to you. Thank you for being with us.

And we have a very different perspective coming up soon. It's a conversation with liberal Democrat Arianna Huffington about her book "Third World America: How Our Politicians Are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream."

Listen to the Audio

In a collaborative report, we examine why some veterans with traumatic brain injuries are having trouble getting awarded the Purple Heart.

JIM LEHRER: Now: a story about hearts and minds. That's Purple Hearts and soldiers with traumatic brain injuries suffered in combat. Our report is an unusual public media collaboration. The NewsHour worked with our colleagues at PBS' "Frontline" to produce this story. It was based on the reporting of T. Christian Miller the online reporting Web site ProPublica and Daniel Zwerdling of National Public Radio.

He's the one with the headsets on.

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN (RET.), U.S. Army: I don't remember a lot anymore. I don't even remember a lot of my childhood anymore.

DANIEL ZWERDLING, National Public Radio: Michelle Dyarman was a major in the army. We met her at the farmhouse in Pennsylvania where she grew up.

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN: Coming here today, I got lost three times. I had to turn around and find my way three times. And I have driven that route many a time.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Dyarman was on the dean's list back in college. She got a master's. But everything changed in Iraq.

Two days before Christmas 2005, Dyarman's platoon was coming back from a mission, and a roadside bomb exploded in front of her, like the one in this archive footage. Studies show that the blast wave shoots through metal, it shoots through soldiers' brains, and it damages the brains cells and circuits. Dyarman says, it's hazy, but she remembers that she wrenched her back and neck, and she thinks the medics gave her Tylenol and Valium.

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN: I realized I had a screaming bad headache. Take the worst headache you have ever had, and multiply it by about 1,000. And I have had an ongoing headache ever since.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Michelle's father, John, doesn't know what's wrong with her.

JOHN DYARMAN, father of Maj. Michelle Dyarman: She's not the person she was. Michelle used to do everything for me, you know, take care of all my paperwork and stuff. And I kind of help her now.

(LAUGHTER)

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Oh, my goodness. That's all your records? Dyarman's files tell the story. She's had to fight the Army to figure out what's wrong with her brain.

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN: This box is heavy.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Six weeks after the explosion, the Army sent Dyarman home. But she says she could hardly function. So, the Army sent her to Walter Reed Hospital. The doctors there gave her counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder and physical therapy for her neck and back, but nobody diagnosed her main injury until Dyarman left the Army, persistent symptoms from traumatic brain injury, or TBI.

Anybody at Walter Reed ever say to you, Michelle, there's something called a traumatic brain injury, and there's -- you have been in two blasts and a motor vehicle accident; perhaps you have one; we're going to look into this?

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN: No.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Dyarman's not alone. The Pentagon's official figures show that 115,000 troops have suffered TBIs. Some studies suggest the true number could be several times higher.

Most soldiers get better within days of a TBI. But Dyarman's part of what researchers call the miserable minority. Their symptoms last for years, maybe forever. Studies suggest there could be tens of thousands of soldiers like Dyarman. But, Dyarman's files show that many commanders still don't believe that TBIs are really an injury. She has applied several times for the Purple Heart, and the Army has never approved it.

So, what is it about the Purple Heart that feels especially important to you?

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN: It says that I was injured in combat, in -- in a war. It's a part of history. And I can't seem to get that documented.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: For soldiers like Dyarman, the Purple Heart says: You faced the enemy. You sacrificed for your country. It's been awarded since the 1930s.

NARRATOR: Purple Hearts are awarded to United States soldiers who bravely met the attacks of communist bandits and suffered heroically under fire.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: The Army spells out the kinds of injuries that merit Purple Hearts, like bullet wounds, illness from poison gas, and concussion from explosions, which is the same as TBI.

NARRATOR: The Purple Heart award is only an indirect expression of the real appreciation of a grateful nation.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: So, we went to the Pentagon to find out, why hasn't the Army given Purple Hearts to many soldiers with TBI?

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI, U.S. Army vice chief of staff: The Purple Heart shows that you did your job, you met with and closed with the enemy, that you went into harm's way to -- to stand up for something your country believes in.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Peter Chiarelli is the second most powerful general in the Army. He's the vice chief of staff. He's the point man on health issues like TBI. Chiarelli says, it's true, some commanders still don't award Purple Hearts for concussion, despite the regulations. They still don't get that TBI is really an injury. But he says he's trying to change that.

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI: We have got to change the culture of the Army, we have got to change the culture of society, to get people the help they need. But it is a long process. Just because you don't see blood, just because you don't see a bullet hole, just because you don't see a missing appendage doesn't mean an individual hasn't been injured.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: So, if I am a soldier or a Marine, and I'm in a blast, and a doctor diagnoses me with having a concussion or a mild traumatic brain injury as a result of that blast, I should get the Purple Heart?

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI: Yes, you should.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: No question?

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI: Well, you're going to have to go through a process.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: And then General Chiarelli got into the fine print. And soldiers say that fine print makes it almost impossible for them to get the Purple Hearts they say they deserve.

Take Nathan Scheller. He was a tank commander. He suffered multiple concussions in Iraq. He says, at first, he felt he didn't deserve a Purple Heart. Some of his buddies lost their legs. But now that he's home, Scheller realizes his brain doesn't work right anymore. His wife, Miriam, agrees.

MIRIAM SCHELLER, wife of Sgt. Nathan Scheller: It's a lot more to try to even get his attention. He repeats himself a lot more, now that he's been home, as well. In the five minutes he's telling a simple story, he will tell that story five times. You can't see his injury, really. He looks perfectly fine. So, there's even times that I, as a spouse, forget something's really going on with him.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Scheller was home from Iraq for a year before doctors diagnosed his traumatic brain injury. They sent him to a brain rehabilitation clinic. But when it comes to the Purple Heart, he has to prove what happened to him in Iraq. He has to prove he was wounded in a specific explosion on a specific day. He has to show that a doctor diagnosed his TBI and treated him. And that can be a huge problem for a lot of soldiers, because Army doctors didn't keep many of those records.

SGT. NATHAN SCHELLER (RET.), U.S. Army: I would get told that, well, I got to have this form. So I would get this form, start over. The Army wants to ask you, well, how long were you knocked out for? How the hell do I know? So, I prepared all this paperwork myself, and then I submitted it.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: To whom?

SGT. NATHAN SCHELLER: To -- to my commander. But it would never go any farther than this.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: We asked the Army two simple questions: Which commanders rejected Purple Hearts for Scheller and other soldiers with TBI, and why? A spokesmen told us, they don't keep that information.

But we obtained internal Army documents, and they suggest one answer. These e-mails show that commanders in Iraq debated whether they should give Purple Hearts to most soldiers with TBI. Some thought it was like giving the Purple Heart for minor scrapes.

That mind-set became official policy under General Joseph Caravalho. He ran the medical system in Iraq in 2008. His memo said, "In many cases, soldiers wouldn't get Purple Hearts if they only got minimal medical treatment."

The problem is, the official regulations don't say anything about how much treatment you have to get for a bullet wound of any other injury. So, Caravalho's memo creates a much tougher standard for TBI. Caravalho wouldn't talk to us, but he told us in e-mail that he was trying to help. We showed his memo to General Chiarelli.

Were you aware of this memo before yesterday or today?

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI: No, I wasn't. I have asked my lawyers to look at it to make sure that we don't -- we have not made this more restrictive than the Army regulation.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Chiarelli says some soldiers with TBIs have received Purple Hearts. But the Pentagon told us they don't know how many, and they don't know how many have been denied.

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI: And I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I will go downrange and ensure that I talk to them and let them know that they need to be more in line with the regulation.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: We asked officials at the Pentagon, what's the Purple Heart policy in Afghanistan, now that the fighting and explosions are shifting there? They said they're revising the policy.

Meanwhile, the military says they're making progress on traumatic brain injury in general. They have just opened a center to study it. And they have rolled out new policies designed to diagnosis and treat it better. But, for soldiers like Michelle Dyarman, those changes haven't come fast enough. She's been fighting for proper treatment for almost five years.

MAJ. MICHELLE DYARMAN: It feels like nobody cares, like I was left behind. And one of the things you always learn from the very beginning is, never leave a soldier behind. I was left behind.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Dyarman and her family and friends say she's still struggling with her brain injury, and she's still waiting for her Purple Heart.

JIM LEHRER: On our Web site, you can explore how the NewsHour has followed the emergence of TBI as a serious medical issue in the military, plus find links to "Frontline"'s coverage of the subject.

Listen to the Audio

Allegations of corruption in the Afghan banking system are causing fury and concern among citizens who fear their money isn't safe. Margaret Warner talks to Washington Post correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran for more.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: a bank in trouble in a country riddled with accusations of high-level corruption. Margaret Warner has the Afghan story.

MARGARET WARNER: For more than a week now, nervous Afghans have lined up outside branches of one of the nation's largest banks, trying to withdraw their deposits.

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, Kabul Bank customer (through translator): After we heard the news, we have come to Kabul Bank to close my account, but it is very busy here. A lot of people are here to withdraw their money.

MARGARET WARNER: The customers acted after Kabul Bank posted losses of $300 million and saw its two top officers ousted.

U.S. and Afghan officials say the bank made unorthodox loans to well-connected elites and risky real estate investments in Dubai. The bank has close connections to President Hamid Karzai. The top shareholders, former chairman Sherkhan Farnood and former CEO Khalilullah Fruzi, helped finance and advise Karzai's 2009 reelection campaign.

Two other top shareholders, and beneficiaries of bank loans, are the president's brother, Mahmoud Karzai, and the vice president's brother, Haseen Fahim. The government insists its central bank will do what's needed to keep Kabul Bank from collapsing.

OMAR ZAKHILWAL, Afghan finance minister: My message to all the depositors is that their money is safe. The government of the Afghanistan bank is standing behind Kabul Bank. We know the money is there. They must not panic.

MARGARET WARNER: State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said this week, the U.S. won't be involved in any bailout.

P.J. CROWLEY, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Public Affairs: We are there to provide support as needed, but we do not contemplate employing any U.S. taxpayer funds to rescue the bank.

MARGARET WARNER: And for more, we go to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a senior correspondent and associate editor of The Washington Post who has reported extensively from Afghanistan.

And, Rajiv, welcome back. First, just a little context here. How important is Kabul Bank to Afghanistan's overall financial system and stability?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN, national editor, The Washington Post: It's vitally important. It is the largest bank in the country. It has a network of branches and ATMs.

But one thing that makes it centrally key in this whole international effort to stabilize the country is that Kabul Bank is -- is the bank that is used to pay the salaries of thousands of police officers and soldiers across the country. And, if there's a disruption to that, there could be broad-scale chaos in the country.

MARGARET WARNER: So, how did it get in such hot water financially? I mean, was this bad business judgment, or are we talking about malfeasance?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, this is characteristic, I think, of the freewheeling financial climate in Afghanistan of mismanagement that led to a series of incredibly foolish real estate purchases in the United Arab Emirates at the height of the real estate market, huge amounts of the bank's capital going to those sorts of purchases -- and, of course, as that property market collapsed, the bank's investments collapsed -- but also just very shoddy management and oversight.

And -- and that, of course, gets to the political connections here. Because of the -- the connections to the president's brother and the vice president's brother, does that mean that the regulators, whatever they are in Afghanistan, weren't really keeping tabs on what this bank was doing?

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president's brother Mahmoud Karzai, he directly benefited from bank funds, right? I mean, they -- they were used to enrich him.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Indeed, and with this sort of very curious shell game. He received a loan from the bank, so he could buy shares in the bank, a very unorthodox practice. And then he received an additional loan to buy a luxurious villa on the beach in Dubai that then he then sold for something like an $800,000 profit.

So, he's clearly had a financial stake in all of this and has benefited. And then the question is, by -- what connection is there to the president? We do know that the bank played a key role in helping to finance President Hamid Karzai's reelection bid last year.

MARGARET WARNER: That's right. The two top officials there were chief financial advisers to the campaign. Now, to what degree does this situation offer a window into the broader problem of Afghanistan corruption, which we read a lot about and we hear alleged a lot? But rarely are there actual particulars that are easy to understand.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, I think what this shows us is that corruption is endemic in Afghanistan.

It not only affects the largest bank there, but a whole series of other institutions, public and private. And it's sapping public confidence in the Afghan government, which leads directly to the security situation and the problems the country faces.

A big driver of the insurgency is simply public -- the lack of public confidence in the Afghan government. And they -- they look at these senior officials and say, they're enriching themselves in these sorts of illegal ways. Why should I throw my support behind the government?

The Taliban, draconian as it is, is offering to the Afghan people or saying to the Afghan people, we promise you good, clean governance.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you had a today reporting that the Afghan president, President Karzai, is just taking steps now that will make it harder to get at this broader problem of corruption.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Indeed. What the president has said he intends to do is to restrict the activities of U.S. and British advisers to the principal anti-corruption agencies within the Ministry of Interior. And these are agencies that have actually investigated and arrested several officials in country, including most recently a top aide in Karzai's presidential palace.

And what Karzai has said is, those foreign advisers now have to take a backseat role, just do training; they can't be involved in actually shaping these investigations. He's also going to prohibit the United States from helping to -- what they say plus-up the salaries of some of these investigators, so that they can attract the best people. And he's also saying that the United States can't really have a role in helping to select Afghans to work on these investigative units.

MARGARET WARNER: And the Obama administration, how has it reacted to this? Is it trying to convince Karzai not to do this?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: It's not saying a whole lot publicly. There's a whole lot of behind-the-scenes action here trying to get Karzai to back away from some of these things. They recognize the issue of Afghan sovereignty and -- what -- Karzai's argument that, when this aide was arrested, that they came in and barged in, in the middle of the night, and that has ruffled a lot of feathers there. But they say, look, to get the support of the U.S. Congress for funds and whatnot, you need to be more transparent and you need to support these bodies.

MARGARET WARNER: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, thank you.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Good to talk to you.

Listen to the Audio

Allegations of corruption in the Afghan banking system are causing fury and concern among citizens who fear their money isn't safe. Margaret Warner talks to Washington Post correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran for more.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: a bank in trouble in a country riddled with accusations of high-level corruption. Margaret Warner has the Afghan story.

MARGARET WARNER: For more than a week now, nervous Afghans have lined up outside branches of one of the nation's largest banks, trying to withdraw their deposits.

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, Kabul Bank customer (through translator): After we heard the news, we have come to Kabul Bank to close my account, but it is very busy here. A lot of people are here to withdraw their money.

MARGARET WARNER: The customers acted after Kabul Bank posted losses of $300 million and saw its two top officers ousted.

U.S. and Afghan officials say the bank made unorthodox loans to well-connected elites and risky real estate investments in Dubai. The bank has close connections to President Hamid Karzai. The top shareholders, former chairman Sherkhan Farnood and former CEO Khalilullah Fruzi, helped finance and advise Karzai's 2009 reelection campaign.

Two other top shareholders, and beneficiaries of bank loans, are the president's brother, Mahmoud Karzai, and the vice president's brother, Haseen Fahim. The government insists its central bank will do what's needed to keep Kabul Bank from collapsing.

OMAR ZAKHILWAL, Afghan finance minister: My message to all the depositors is that their money is safe. The government of the Afghanistan bank is standing behind Kabul Bank. We know the money is there. They must not panic.

MARGARET WARNER: State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said this week, the U.S. won't be involved in any bailout.

P.J. CROWLEY, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Public Affairs: We are there to provide support as needed, but we do not contemplate employing any U.S. taxpayer funds to rescue the bank.

MARGARET WARNER: And for more, we go to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a senior correspondent and associate editor of The Washington Post who has reported extensively from Afghanistan.

And, Rajiv, welcome back. First, just a little context here. How important is Kabul Bank to Afghanistan's overall financial system and stability?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN, national editor, The Washington Post: It's vitally important. It is the largest bank in the country. It has a network of branches and ATMs.

But one thing that makes it centrally key in this whole international effort to stabilize the country is that Kabul Bank is -- is the bank that is used to pay the salaries of thousands of police officers and soldiers across the country. And, if there's a disruption to that, there could be broad-scale chaos in the country.

MARGARET WARNER: So, how did it get in such hot water financially? I mean, was this bad business judgment, or are we talking about malfeasance?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, this is characteristic, I think, of the freewheeling financial climate in Afghanistan of mismanagement that led to a series of incredibly foolish real estate purchases in the United Arab Emirates at the height of the real estate market, huge amounts of the bank's capital going to those sorts of purchases -- and, of course, as that property market collapsed, the bank's investments collapsed -- but also just very shoddy management and oversight.

And -- and that, of course, gets to the political connections here. Because of the -- the connections to the president's brother and the vice president's brother, does that mean that the regulators, whatever they are in Afghanistan, weren't really keeping tabs on what this bank was doing?

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president's brother Mahmoud Karzai, he directly benefited from bank funds, right? I mean, they -- they were used to enrich him.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Indeed, and with this sort of very curious shell game. He received a loan from the bank, so he could buy shares in the bank, a very unorthodox practice. And then he received an additional loan to buy a luxurious villa on the beach in Dubai that then he then sold for something like an $800,000 profit.

So, he's clearly had a financial stake in all of this and has benefited. And then the question is, by -- what connection is there to the president? We do know that the bank played a key role in helping to finance President Hamid Karzai's reelection bid last year.

MARGARET WARNER: That's right. The two top officials there were chief financial advisers to the campaign. Now, to what degree does this situation offer a window into the broader problem of Afghanistan corruption, which we read a lot about and we hear alleged a lot? But rarely are there actual particulars that are easy to understand.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, I think what this shows us is that corruption is endemic in Afghanistan.

It not only affects the largest bank there, but a whole series of other institutions, public and private. And it's sapping public confidence in the Afghan government, which leads directly to the security situation and the problems the country faces.

A big driver of the insurgency is simply public -- the lack of public confidence in the Afghan government. And they -- they look at these senior officials and say, they're enriching themselves in these sorts of illegal ways. Why should I throw my support behind the government?

The Taliban, draconian as it is, is offering to the Afghan people or saying to the Afghan people, we promise you good, clean governance.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you had a today reporting that the Afghan president, President Karzai, is just taking steps now that will make it harder to get at this broader problem of corruption.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Indeed. What the president has said he intends to do is to restrict the activities of U.S. and British advisers to the principal anti-corruption agencies within the Ministry of Interior. And these are agencies that have actually investigated and arrested several officials in country, including most recently a top aide in Karzai's presidential palace.

And what Karzai has said is, those foreign advisers now have to take a backseat role, just do training; they can't be involved in actually shaping these investigations. He's also going to prohibit the United States from helping to -- what they say plus-up the salaries of some of these investigators, so that they can attract the best people. And he's also saying that the United States can't really have a role in helping to select Afghans to work on these investigative units.

MARGARET WARNER: And the Obama administration, how has it reacted to this? Is it trying to convince Karzai not to do this?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: It's not saying a whole lot publicly. There's a whole lot of behind-the-scenes action here trying to get Karzai to back away from some of these things. They recognize the issue of Afghan sovereignty and -- what -- Karzai's argument that, when this aide was arrested, that they came in and barged in, in the middle of the night, and that has ruffled a lot of feathers there. But they say, look, to get the support of the U.S. Congress for funds and whatnot, you need to be more transparent and you need to support these bodies.

MARGARET WARNER: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, thank you.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Good to talk to you.

Listen to the Audio

Whether the tax cuts enacted under the latest Bush presidency should be extended past the Dec. 31 expiration date is slated to be a key policy issue debated as elections approach. Jeffrey Brown gets two views about extending the cuts and whether it would mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans.

JIM LEHRER: And to one of the biggest of the policy debates of the coming months: whether to extend Bush era tax cuts.

Jeffrey Brown has that story.

JEFFREY BROWN: The tax cuts in question were signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. Unless extended by Congress, they will expire on December 31 and rates would rise across the board.

This week, President Obama announced he favors keeping the current rates for the majority of American households: those with incomes below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals. But the president wants to end the cuts for top earners, whose income tax rate would go from 35 percent to the pre-2001 standard of 39 percent. Republicans are resisting that move.

U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: They say no. And the reason is, they're holding all those middle-class folks who need tax relief hostage right now, in order to provide tax breaks for the top 2 percent.

JEFFREY BROWN: GOP leaders have called for extending all the cuts for at least two years, arguing that too many Americans will be hurt at a time of economic stagnation.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), minority leader: This particular tax increase that he has in mind that he will characterize as a tax increase on the wealthy, in fact, impacts 50 percent of small business income, 25 percent of the work force.

JEFFREY BROWN: The issue is already being hotly debated in midterm election races, and will likely come to a head after the November results are in.

And we hold our own debate on this question now with Heather Boushey, senior economist at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, and Jeffrey Miron, an economist at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Heather Boushey, what's the economic argument for doing what the president wants and letting the tax cuts for top earners lapse?

HEATHER BOUSHEY, senior economist, Center For American Progress: Well, the important thing right mow is that the economy still needs customers. We still need people to go out there and spend money.

And what the president has proposed is that we keep those tax cuts for middle-class families, the families that are going to spend the money, the -- those extra dollars in their pocket, but you let them expire for the folks at the very top.

We saw over the 2000s that those tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans didn't lead to strong economic growth, didn't lead to strong investment, didn't lead to strong job gains. And, so, we know that those folks aren't going to spend that money. They're not going to do as much as focusing those dollars on the middle class, where it can have the most bang for the buck right now.

JEFFREY BROWN: They're not going to -- that money doesn't stimulate the economy; that's the argument.

HEATHER BOUSHEY: That's the argument, that, if you keep tax cuts for the wealthiest, it won't stimulate the economy, but it will add to the deficit.

And, really, what we have to be focused on right now is what economists would call the opportunity costs. We spend those dollars on tax cuts for the wealthiest, there's things we can't do with them, such as spending money on infrastructure or small business tax cuts that would really help boost the economy right now.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Jeffrey Miron, you -- you favor extending all the tax cuts. What's the -- what's the evidence that it does stimulate the economy, especially those top earners?

JEFFREY MIRON, economics professor, Harvard University: Well, we have had lots of evidence on the short-run stimulative effects of tax cuts. The best evidence is recent evidence from David Romer and Christina Romer, who just resigned as President Obama's chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.

They found very strong positive effects on the economy from tax cuts, whether they were middle-class, upper-income, or whatever. The second thing I would emphasize is that it's not just about the short run. It should also be about setting the right incentives in place for the longer term.

And the high rates on high-income earners are a disincentive to work. They're a strong incentive to try to evade or avoid taxes by having income paid in sort of ways which are not taxed. And we should remember that it's not just the marginal rate from the federal income tax that high-income earners face. They also face state income tax rates. They're going to face higher rates from the federal government because of new taxes in Obamacare.

So, you're going to have marginal rates, well in excess of 50 percent. Those are serious disincentive to effort and a serious incentive to hide income. That's very bad for the economy, both in the short term and in the long term.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, well, Heather Boushey, respond to that, but also this -- the question -- the other question out there, who is going to be most impacted? Partly, this is a question of the small businesses. How would the impact play out here?

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Well, the tax cuts that we're talking about today are not going to affect the kind of small businesses that you and I think about, sort of the mom-and-pop store on the corner of my block. Those typically aren't the folks who are going to be affected.

Ninety-seven percent of tax filers who have small business income won't be affected by these tax cuts, by these -- by allowing the tax cuts to expire. So, it's that top 3 percent who really bring in the bulk of the money that will be affected.

So -- but I think, again, the thing that we have to remember is, where this economy is right now, we are still in a situation where we don't have enough demand. What we see in survey after survey from small businesses is that they're not seeing enough sales.

They're wondering, you know, where are the customers coming through my doors? And so we need to target our policy response to help those small businesses see sales. And giving -- extending the tax cuts for middle-class families will help put more customers in the door, in the way that targeting them at the top end simply won't do.

JEFFREY BROWN: But then, of course, the question, why not -- why not end all the tax cuts? I mean, why not end it for the middle class as well? And your argument there is -- goes to the deficit question.

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Well, certainly, but we know that folks in the lower and middle classes are more likely to spend every dollar that they get, so -- because they don't have a lot of wiggle room. They don't have a lot of savings. They don't have a lot of excess money.

So, when they get that dollar, when they get to keep that extra dollar in those tax cuts, they will be more likely to go out and spend them. Those folks at the very top, they have got a lot of excess resources, and so they're not going to spend that full dollar.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, Jeffrey Miron, where do you come out on this small business question of the impact here? Who would be impacted?

JEFFREY MIRON: Well, it's certainly right that the large majority of the things that we typically are thinking about when we say small business, they are unlikely to be affected by the tax increases on the high-income earners.

So, a small mom-and-pop grocery store does probably not have an income high enough to be affected. But there's a large amount of income -- a recent estimate published in The Wall Street Journal -- roughly 50 percent of income earned by smallish sort of companies -- these are things that are Subchapter S corporations, partnerships and so on, that are neither these large corporations, nor the very, very small mom-and-pops.

They earn a lot of the income that would be affected by these higher tax rates. And these are precisely very energetic, startup types of companies that contribute a lot to hiring, that contribute a lot to entrepreneurship, that contribute a lot to innovation.

So, these higher tax rates are definitely a disincentive for them to be able to engage in those activities and contribute in an important way to the economy.

JEFFREY BROWN: And what about -- staying with you, what about the other question that Heather raised earlier about the opportunity -- what she called the opportunity costs?

And we have seen the president has put some other proposals on the table, some business tax incentives that he wants to do. Why not use the money from what he wants to do for other things, more directly to help businesses?

JEFFREY MIRON: Well, certainly. First, I don't think that they're mutually exclusive. The permanent credit for research and development, I have zero objection to whatsoever.

First of all, I like that fact that it's permanent, so it gives businesses a long-term plan that they can work with. They know what to expect. They don't have to think about doing something right now because some tax credit's going to expire, even though it might make sense for them to postpone it for a year or two and do it when it's more advantageous for them.

The full expensing of investment, which will take place in 2011, but only 2011 under the president's proposal, that's in the right direction, and it does encourage more investment to happen sooner. But it mainly is going to shift when investment occurs, because businesses are going to have to pay for that investment by depreciation -- were going to be able to deduct that anyway by depreciation allowances.

And the only benefit, therefore, is they that don't have to borrow in order to be able to do the investment now. But interest rates are so low, that that's a very small effect. So, I have no objection in principle, but I don't think that's going to do very much to stimulate the economy.

JEFFREY BROWN: And, Heather Boushey, your argument is that what the president is proposing vis-a-vis these business incentives is a more direct stimulus?

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Well, certainly, it's more direct than just giving money to rich Americans. You know, rich Americans aren't necessarily the same people who create jobs. And targeting money at businesses certainly targets it better at people who are doing job creation.

But, of course, the other thing that is on the plate that the president has been talking about is directing more money towards infrastructure, which gets at the long-term issues that we have just been talking about.

We do need to make those investments in our economy. And a lot of those investments in infrastructure, in roads, in railways, in airports, these are all things that help businesses, large and small, transport people and goods and services around our economy. So, that's all -- those are all the kinds of investments that we need to be making, which will also, at this juncture, boost job creation.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. This debate will continue, and we will follow it.

Jeffrey Miron and Heather Boushey, thank you both very much.

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Thank you.

JEFFREY MIRON: Thank you.

Listen to the Audio

In other news Thursday, a bomb packed with metal bars and bolts tore through an entrance to a busy market in Russia killing at least 17. In Iran, American hiker Sarah Shourd is scheduled to be set free on Saturday after being arrested along the Iraqi border 13 months ago.

HARI SREENIVASAN: A powerful suicide bomb hit a Russian market today, killing at least 17 people. The bomb was packed with metal bars, bolts and ball bearings, and tore through the entrance to a busy market in North Ossetia.

More than 130 people were wounded. It was one of the worst attacks in years in the North Caucasus region, which has been gripped by violence from two separatist wars. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for today's attack.

Jailed American hiker Sarah Shourd will be set free on Saturday. That word came from Iran's envoy to the U.N. Mission today. Shourd told her mother in a phone call last month she has serious medical problems. She is one of three American hikers held prisoner in Iran for 13 months, after being arrested along the Iraqi border. It is common in the Islamic world to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan by releasing prisoners. A White House spokesman today repeated a call for Iran to release all of the Americans.

A wildfire raging in the rugged foothills of Colorado is now 30 percent contained. Fire officials said the four-day-old fire has already burned 10 square miles northwest of Boulder, and destroyed nearly 170 homes. High winds gusting up to 60 miles an hour were expected later, and fire officials cautioned that that could reverse any progress.

ROB BOZEMAN, field observer, Boulder Mountain Fire Protection District: The wind event tonight, we could be off to the races. All it takes is one spark outside, and that's a new fire. And with the winds tonight, it could be off to the races. Not saying that it will. It takes a chain of events to get that to happen.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Local authorities also said all of the nine people reported missing earlier have now been accounted for.

The leftovers of Tropical Storm Hermine brought more flooding to parts of Texas and Oklahoma. Heavy rains in North and Central Texas killed two motorists and prompted more than 100 high-water rescues. And authorities said the death toll could increase. At least four people are still missing after being swept away in the San Antonio and Austin areas. Meanwhile, cleanup efforts were under way from several powerful tornadoes that touched down near Dallas and in southern Oklahoma.

Federal funding of stem cell research can go ahead, for now. That was the decision of a three-judge panel at a federal appeals court in Washington. The judges said they want more time to deal with issues in the government's appeal. Funding for some stem cell research was put on hold last month when a district court ruled the research destroys human embryos.

The American Civil Liberties Union will ask the Supreme Court to review a case challenging a CIA program that flew terror suspects to secret prisons. Yesterday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw the case out, citing national security risks. It was filed by five terror suspects arrested just after 9/11 who claim they were flown around the world to secret prisons. The appeals court reinforced the power of the president to invoke the state secrets privilege to stop lawsuits involving national security.

More than 33,000 people died on the nation's highways in 2009, but that number is almost 10 percent lower than 2008. The Department of Transportation said such low numbers have not been seen since the 1950s. Government and auto safety experts attributed the drop to better technology, more safety-conscious drivers, and tougher enforcement of drunk driving laws.

On Wall Street today, stocks rose on stronger-than-expected jobs data. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 28 points to close at 10415. The Nasdaq rose seven points to close at 2236.

Listen to the Audio

The Florida pastor who caused a global uproar over plans to burn Qurans on the 9/11 anniversary suspended those plans and is seeking a deal to move a planned Islamic center in New York. Ray Suarez gets two takes on Thursday's developments with counter-terrorism experts Mohammed Hafez and Brian Fishman.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on this story, we're joined by Mohammed Hafez, an associate professor in the Department of National Security Affairs of the Naval Postgraduate School, and Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism research fellow at the New America Foundation. Both have written extensively on Islamic movements.

Professor Hafez, Pastor Jones has stepped back from International Burn a Koran Day. Does that announcement come in enough time to forestall what might have been bad effects?

MOHAMMED HAFEZ, associate professor in the Department of National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School: Well, it may have. But I think it has cast a pall on Muslim celebrations of Eid al-Fitr, which is about to take place tomorrow. But my concern is, is that this episode may have passed, but others are now going to seek to emulate what the pastor has proposed to do, largely to garner national media attention, as well as attention of the president and those in high command.

RAY SUAREZ: Brian Fishman, what do you think? Is the damage already done?

BRIAN FISHMAN, counterterrorism research fellow, New America Foundation: Well, I think -- I think that forestalling and preventing the images of burning Korans is useful and will prevent some of the radicalization that might occur.

It certainly means that al-Qaida can't use those images in its propaganda. But I think it's worth noting here that, sometimes, perception is more important than reality, especially for jihadi and al-Qaida recruiters. And they're going to go out, and I wouldn't be surprised if they argue, even if there are no Korans burned, that they argue -- that they argue that they were burned, and so that we will see some radicalization, despite the fact that this may not go forward.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor, do you agree, that, even in the absence of burning Korans, this incident can be a tool in that -- in somebody's hands?

MOHAMMED HAFEZ: I certainly would agree with what Brian has said. And what we have to remember is this that this episode is taking place in the context of a broader vitriolic discourse around Muslims and Muslim faith, or Islamic faith. We have to remember that this is taking place in the context of people questioning whether an Islamic center should be built in Lower Manhattan, and accusations that President Obama is a Muslim, and, presumably, that is a bad thing.

And so the damage in some ways has already been done. And, yes, the radical extremists will exploit this to promote their narrative that there is a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, and that the West is out there to humiliate Muslims.

RAY SUAREZ: At the same time, Professor, the president of the United States, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, religious leaders from many different faiths in the United States have denounced this activity in advance of it happening.

Is that not heard at all in those same circles that you're talking about being radicalized by the argument over burning the Koran?

MOHAMMED HAFEZ: Well, I think those messages are very important, and I commend the president and all the individuals that have stepped forward, including General Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for making these very important announcements.

The challenge that we have, though, is that there is a broader context to this episode or what was proposed to take place, and that is increasing American distrust of Muslims. There's suspicion being cast on the Islamic identity, and this despite the fact that Muslims, generally speaking, have been very loyal to America.

Most of those who attacked us on 9/11 or before that have come from outside of the Islamic communities in the United States. And so that's where I think is the real danger, is that that broader discourse around this episode is tearing asunder Islamic Muslim-American relations in the United States.

RAY SUAREZ: Brian Fishman, more on that very outspoken reaction from American leadership.

BRIAN FISHMAN: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: Does that indicate to you, the fact that this wasn't done through back channels, that it was done publicly and internationally, that they were getting a lot of feedback about threats around the world?

BRIAN FISHMAN: Yes, it does. This had to be done, in my view. And I understand there is an argument out there that says the president and General Petraeus and a slew of domestic political leaders shouldn't have raised the profile of this issue.

But, frankly, the first time that I became aware that there was a pastor that planned to burn Korans in Florida was on a jihadi Web site more than a month ago, when there was sort of a short news article from a British newspaper that had mentioned this, and it was being discussed by the jihadis.

And already then, more than a month ago, there were posters on these Web sites saying, you know what? We need do something. This is a big deal. This changes the way I look at things.

And, so, I think that it's very important for our political leaders and our civic leaders to come out, and not only denounce efforts like this one in Florida, but really raise the standard of debate. We don't talk about the issues of sort of Muslims in America and the issues of terrorism -- the larger issues of terrorism in a very sophisticated way. Oftentimes, these are politicized. The rhetoric that is used is really, really rancorous. And we need to do a better job.

Those political leaders needs -- need to raise the standard, so that when somebody like this pastor in Florida does something crazy, it stands out even more.

RAY SUAREZ: As we reported earlier -- and before we go -- the issue of building an Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan has now been joined to this question of burning Korans in Florida.

Professor, were they already joined in -- in the opinions of viewers outside America in the Muslim world?

MOHAMMED HAFEZ: Well, they were joined, but not in the way that the pastor is suggesting that they be linked.

The fact is, we have a person like Sarah Palin and Boehner who came on TV and said that the -- you know, portraying Muslims as being extremists for seeking to build an Islamic center, one to promote cultural understanding and bridging interfaith communities.

By linking those issues, in many ways, they have taken what is bad and what is good and linked it together. And I think that is really unfortunate.

What we have here are two separate, entirely two separate discussions that need to take place, one an Islamic center that is seeking to promote cultural understanding, and one that is simply seeking to promote and provoke hatred and distrust and, indeed, violence between communities.

RAY SUAREZ: For the record, Governor Palin denounced the attempts to burn Korans in Florida. And, for the record, just before we went on the air this evening, the director of the cultural center in Lower Manhattan that's seeking to be built denied that there was any deal to move the center, and the developer who owns the land said there was no deal as well, though Pastor Jones says he is flying to New York for further consultations.

Gentlemen, thank you very much.

BRIAN FISHMAN: Thank you.