Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "President Barack Obama drew harsh criticism for comparing the terrorist group Islamic State to a ""JV team"" and then again for claiming that's not what he said (PolitiFact rated that statement False). On Sunday, another one of his characterizations of the situation in the Middle East came under fire as the political talk shows debated his plan for dealing with instability there. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden was asked about Obama's decision to arm local rebel groups in Syria to help fight the Islamic State there. He wondered why Obama was suddenly interested in arming opposition forces there. ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on,"" Hayden said. ""We've turned on the dime in terms of our expectation for them, so if we're going to get them to this force that he said it was fantasy to rely on to the force that's going to be, as (White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough) said, the anvil in a combined arms operation, they're going to need an awful lot of help."" In this case, we're checking whether Obama described theSyrian rebels as ""pharmacists and doctors."" We're not checking whether the rebels actually are pharmacists or doctors, as we'll explain in a bit. We tried to reach Hayden but were unsuccessful. McDonough, though, was asked about Obama's comment during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union. ""I think that the question that the president was responding to at the time was looking back a couple of years,"" McDonough said. ""We have had a relationship with these fighters now for a couple of years. They're getting better and more capable."" If that's the case, then maybe Hayden was embellishing Obama's comments. Keep in mind, the debate over arming the Syrian opposition forces in their fight against Syrian President Bashar al Assad has been ongoing for years. PolitiFact noted in a fact-check last week that several key members of Obama's national security team favored the move in August 2012. Let's take a look at exactly what Obama said. We found four instances of Obama describing the Syrian opposition forces in recent months. May 29 Obama discussed his foreign policy during an interview with NPR. He was asked if conditions were more ""robust"" for aiding the rebels than in the past. ""I wouldn't say the conditions are better,"" Obama said. ""In many ways, the conditions are worse. ""When you talk about the moderate opposition, many of these people were farmers or dentists or maybe some radio reporters who didn't have a lot of experience fighting,"" he added. ""But creating a capacity for them to hold ground, to be able to rebuff vicious attacks, for them to be able to also organize themselves in ways that are cohesive all that takes, unfortunately, more time than I think many people would like."" For what it's worth, the Washington Post fact-checked Obama's claim about the makeup of Syrian rebels as farmer, dentists and radio reporters and found it to be dubious. June 19 In mid June, a few days before Obama asked Congress for $500 million to train and equip some of the Syrian opposition, he discussed the makeup of those forces on a couple occasions. In a June 19 press conference, a reporter asked Obama if ""the expansion of the Syria war into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we're now willing to give the opposition there?"" Obama responded: ""The question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless. ""And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support,"" Obama said. ""Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize them. And that continues to be a challenge."" The next morning, he made a similar comment to CBS'This Morning. ""When you get farmers, dentists and folks who have never fought before going up against a ruthless opposition in Assad, the notion that they were in a position suddenly to overturn not only Assad but also ruthless, highly trained jihadists if we just sent a few arms is a fantasy."" Aug. 8 In a sitdown with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Obama again was asked about why he chose not to arm the Syrian rebels. ""This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,"" Obama said. Counter to what McDonough said Sept. 14, Obama very much seems to be talking about the Syrian opposition in the present and the challenges in providing them with assistance and arms. This continued up until August. The one caveat that Hayden does not mention is the conversation was largely in the context of the opposition's capacity to go up against Assad and the Syrian regime, not their ability to fight a rogue terrorist organization like the Islamic State. Still, it is a noticeable about-face that as recently as August, Obama told Friedman he believed ""there's not as much capacity as you would hope"" for providing these individuals training. Our ruling In discussing Obama's decision to arm opposition forces in Syria, Hayden said, ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on."" We found several examples of Obama, as recently as June and August, characterizing the Syrian rebels as pharmacists and doctors, as well as dentists, radio reporters and teachers. Usually he was describing their capacity to fight Assad, but that doesn't make Hayden's point any less accurate." Claim: The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on.
[EX A]: "In discussing Obama's decision to arm opposition forces in Syria, Hayden said, ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on."" We found several examples of Obama, as recently as June and August, characterizing the Syrian rebels as pharmacists and doctors, as well as dentists, radio reporters and teachers. Usually he was describing their capacity to fight Assad, but that doesn't make Hayden's point any less accurate."

[EX Q]: Paragraph: There will be 50,000 more nurses going into the NHS. The government has committed to do this by 2024/25. Not all of these nurses will be 'new'. The government have announced the end of hospital parking charges for patients. In December it was announced that hospitals in England will have to provide free car parking to frequent hospital visitors, blue badge holders and at certain times to staff and parents of child patients. The government will build 40 new hospitals. Six hospitals in England are getting the money to upgrade their buildings within the next five years. Up to 38 hospitals are getting money to develop plans for their hospitals between 2025 and 2030, but not to actually begin any building work. The government is putting 20,000 more police on the streets. The government has committed to do this. If this happens it will take the number of police in England and Wales to almost, but not quite the same level as it was at in 2010. The government gave the police much more use of Tasers to help deal with street crime. The Home Office announced police in England and Wales can bid for part of a fund to equip their force with more Tasers. Final funding allocations will be announced in February. The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to 8.72, and it will go up to 10.50. The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to 8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year's Conservative party conference that it would rise to 10.50 within the next five years. Claim 1 of 7 Claim: The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to 8.72, and it will go up to 10.50.
[EX A]: The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to 8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year's Conservative party conference that it would rise to 10.50 within the next five years.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Amid warnings from public health officials that a 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus could soon become a pandemic involving the U.S., alarmed readers asked Snopes to verify a rumor that U.S. President Donald Trump had "fired the entire pandemic response team two years ago and then didn't replace them." The claim came from a series of tweets posted by Judd Legum, who runs Popular Information, a newsletter he describes as being about "politics and power." Legum's commentary was representative of sharp criticism from Democratic legislators (and some Republicans) that the Trump administration had ill-prepared the country for a pandemic even as one was looming on the horizon. Legum outlined a series of cost-cutting decisions made by the Trump administration in preceding years that had gutted the nation's infectious disease defense infrastructure. The "pandemic response team" firing claim referred to news accounts from Spring 2018 reporting that White House officials tasked with directing a national response to a pandemic had been ousted. Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer's team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported "had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks," had been fired one month prior. It's thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer's position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time. Legum stated in a follow-up tweet that "Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forcing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018. Among the countries abandoned? China." That was partly true, according to 2018 news reports stating that funding for the CDC's global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency's efforts in China. But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration. And as the CDC told FactCheck.org, the cuts were ultimately avoided because Congress provided other funding. Claim: The Trump administration fired the U.S. pandemic response team in 2018 to cut costs.
[EX A]:
On Feb. 24, 2020, the Trump administration requested $2.5 billion to address the coronavirus outbreak, an outlay critics asserted might not have been necessary if the previous program cuts had not taken place. Fortune reported of the issue that: