题目内容
President Bush’s push to oust Saddam Hussein (1) power soon became more than a foreign-policy initiative; the (2) and his allies used it as a wedge issue (3) Democrats in the run-up to the 2002 elections."After 9/11, he (4) a country that said, ’We’re ready to follow,’" (5) Rep. Rahm Emanual, D-Ⅲ., a former top aide to President Bill (6) and now a member of the House Democratic leadership. "There (7) so much we could have done. But he said, ’Go shopping’, (8) then he divided the nation. "The hyper-political push for (9) cost him the support of Democrats; there would be no (10) big bipartisan successes for him to celebrate, such as his (11) education law, No Child Left BehinD．Republicans stayed with him, (12) , and while they controlled Congress, that was often enough. It (13) him politically potent through the 2002 and 2004 campaigns.But (14) spending programs and other breaks with conservative dogma hurt the (15) standing inside the GOP, and he never really worked the Washingtongame to (16) relationships with members of Congress.In his (17) term, Democrats scuttled Social Security reform even before the president (18) file a bill. Opposition to Bush became their organizing principle—the formula they rode to success in 2006, (19) the botched federal response to Hurricane Katrina and a continuing war left (20) as damaged goods. （6）处填入（）。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Stay the Course on Terror War 坚持反恐战争的道路 President Bush urged US allies Tuesday to remain committed to the reconstruction of Iraq, vowing that terrorist attacks like last week’s bombings in Spain "will never shake the will of the United States. " "It’s essential that we remain side-by-side with the Iraqi people as they begin the process of serf-government," Bush said in a White House appearance with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. Bush’s comments come one year after the US-led invasion of Iraq and at a time when his handling of the war on terror is being questioned by many Democrats, particularly Sen. John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee. "They’ll kill innocent people to try to shake our will," Bush said of terrorists. "That’s what they want to do. They’ll never shake the will of the United States. We understand the stakes. " The administration has cast the toppling of the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as part of the broader war on terror. Bush has generally enjoyed high marks from the American public for his leadership on national security following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. But Democrats have grown increasingly vocal in their criticism of Bush’s approach to the war on terror, saying he has alienated allies abroad and failed to match his often tough rhetoric with support for first responders, such as firefighters, at home and equipment for soldiers in the fielD． Typical was a comment Monday from Kerry, when he addressed one firefighters’ union that has endorsed his bid for the presidency. "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror," Kerry saiD．"I believe he’s done too little. " The administration has refuted the charges. Administration figures point out that about three dozen nations have contributed in some fashion to the reconstruction of Iraq. And Bush-Cheney campaign officials say it’s Kerry—not Bush—who has failed to provide support for homeland security through various Senate votes. Kerry said the Republican campaign is taking a selective and misleading review of his votes. "I’m not going to worry about them misleading because we’re going to keep pounding away at the truth over the next few months," Kerry said at a campaign event in West Virginia on Tuesday, talking about the administration’s record on several fronts. But the challenge for Bush on the terror war is not just coming from the US campaign trail. In the aftermath of last week’s bombings of commuter trains in Madrid, Spanish voters ousted the Popular Party of Bush ally Jose Maria Aznar in favor of the Socialists, who opposed the US- led invasion of Iraq last March. Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Monday he wants to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq unless the United Nations takes on greater role there. Asked how he would respond to Dutch citizens who have called for Balkenende to withdraw that country’s troops, Bush said, "I would ask them to think about the Iraqi citizens who don’t want people to withdraw because they want to be free. " About 1,100 Dutch troops are stationed in southern Iraq, part of the coalition that has occupied the country since the US-led invasion last March. Balkenende said his government has yet to discuss whether Dutch troops would remain in Iraq beyond the end of June, when the United States plans to hand over power to a new Iraqi government. Bush said the al Qaeda terrorist network—a leading suspect in the Madrid bombings, which killed 201 people—hopes to stop the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. "A1 Qaeda wants us out of Iraq because al Qaeda wants to use Iraq as an example of defeating freedom and democracy," he saiD． The train bombings in Madrid may have（）.
Ethics Office Backs Interior Official 民族部支持内政部的官员 The Office of Government Ethics said the Interior Department’s No. 2 official, Steven Griles, did not appear to violate ethics rules by arranging meetings between Interior officials and his former lobbying clients and partners. The office, after reviewing an 18-month investigation by the Interior Department’s inspector general, said it found no ethics violations by Griles in the department’s awarding of more than $1.6 million i contracts in 2001 and 2002 to Advanced Power Technologies Inc., a former client. Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney said Griles’ behavior is the latest case of an Interior official falling to consider perceived impropriety in his actions. He also called the department’s underfunded ethics office "a train wreck waiting to happen. " Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Republicans in Congress said the report clears Griles of any wrongdoing. Griles is gratified by the finding that he had "adhered to ethics laws and rules. " "I am glad this matter is behind me," he saiD． Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called Devaney’s report a case of the "foxes guarding the foxes," saying the questionable conduct and special treatment given to Griles’ former clients "cannot help but leave a sour taste in the mouth of anyone who believes in the fairness of government. " Environmentalists had alleged that Griles helped former clients land government contracts, intervened in an environmental study of coalbed methane development in Wyoming, and held a dinner for senior department officials at the home of his former lobbying partner. Two matters—the coalbed methane analysis and the Interior Department dinner—were referred to Norton by the Office of Government Ethics for possible action. Norton said they had been adequately addresseD． "This closes the issue," Norton said in a statement. Kristen Sykes of Friends of the Earth disagreed and said Griles should be fireD． "It uncovers regular and consistent breaches of Griles’ ethics agreements and , more importantly, blatant violations of the public’s trust," she saiD．"If this White House is serious about ethics and accountability, Mr. Griles should be dismissed immediately. " Devaney did not draw conclusions in his report, but said in a letter to the department that regardless of whether Griles broke the law, the appearance of wrongdoing erodes public trust. "This is the only one in a series of cases in which we have observed an institutional failure to consider the appearance of a particular course of conduct," he wrote. "It is my hope, however, that this may be the case that changes the ethical culture in the department. " Last month, Devaney cleared the department’s former top lawyer, Bill Myers, of allegations that his official actions benefited former lobbying clients. An investigation is under way into whether Bureau of Land Management Director Kathleen Clarke violated ethics rules by participating in meetings regarding a land exchange in Utah, where she was the state’s director of natural resources. Griles continues to receive $284,000 a year as part of a four-year severance package from his former lobbying firm. In April 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency was about to object to an environmental study of coalbed methane drilling in Wyoming when Griles interveneD．In a phone call and letter, he urged EPA to resolve its differences to keep the project on track. At least six of Griles’s former clients had interest in the project. Devaney also found that Interior Department officials sought out projects to award to one of Griles’ former clients, Advanced Power Technologies, Inc., ather than letting APTI compete for existing projects. After joining the Interior Department, Griles held a dinner party for senior department officials at the home of his former lobbying partner, Marc Himmelstein.Assistant Secretary Rebecca Watson, told Devaney she believed it was improper and could give the appearance of favoritism. Griles said it was a social event that he would have hosted at his home if he had space. Devaney said ethics issues can arise with any appointee, but neglect and a lack of funding have left the Interior Department’s enthics office unable to shepherd officials through the ethics minefielD． What, according to Devaney, seemed to be the causes of ethics problems with the Interior Department （）
Legislation, Lawsuits Cover Both Sides on Same-sex Marriage法律，在同性婚姻问题上诉讼两边不得罪In courtrooms and state capitols nationwide, opponents and supporters of gay marriage have embarked on a collision course, pursuing lawsuits and legislation so deeply at odds that prolonged legal chaos is likely.One plausible result:a nation divided, at least briefly, between a handful of states recognizing gay marriage and a majority which do not.The most clear-cut option for averting such chaos is a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. However, despite support from President Bush, the amendment is given little chance of winning the needed two-thirds support in both the House and Senate this year.Without it, experts say, the rival sides are likely to litigate so relentlessly that the US Supreme Court will eventually be compelled to intercede and clarify whether a legal same-sex union in one state must be recognized in other states."It’s going to be complicated for many years—we’re going to have some free-marriages states, and some that are not," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force."This is not a new situation in our country," Foreman addeD．"We have had a hodgepodge of laws on different social issues. Invariably, we come to widespread consensus, and that’s going to happen to this issue. "For now, though, consensus seems distant as two contrasting legal offensives take shape.On one hand, courts in five relatively liberal states—California, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington—are being asked to consider whether same-sex marriages should be alloweD．In each of these states, local officials have recently performed gay marriages. Gay-rights supporters predict the supreme courts in at least a couple of the states will join Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court in authorizing such marriages.Meanwhile, legislators in many states are moving to amend their constitutions to toughen existing bans on gay marriage and explicitly deny recognition to same-sex unions forged elsewhere.Four states—Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada—already have such constitutional amendments. Similar measures are either certain or likely to go before voters in several other states in November or thereafter, including Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah and Wisconsin.In 10 other legislatures, proposed constitutional amendments are pending—their fate not yet certain.Matt Daniels, who as head of the Alliance for Marriage helped draft the proposed federal constitutional amendment, sees the developments in state,legislatures as proof of strong grass-roots opposition to gay marriage."As the courts push the envelope, public opinion moves in our direction," he said, "It’s a great national referendum...on whether we as a society are going to send a message through our laws that there’s something uniquely special about marriage between a man and a woman. "However, Daniels is convinced that without an amendment putting that definition in the US Constitution, the courts will eventually strike down state down state laws banning gay marriage, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That measure, signed by President Clinton in 1996, allows states to refuse to honor same-sex unions performed elsewhere, and denies federal recognition to such unions.Daniels said the proposed federal amendment, if it did clear Congress, would easily win the required ratification by at least 38 state legislatures.He acknowledged that the measure may have difficulty getting two-thirds backing in the current Senate, where few Democrats support it. But he predicted that pressure on politicians to approve the amendment will increase, once gay couples married in Massachusetts or elsewhere successfully sue to have their marriage honored in other states."When the lawsuits start to export what happens in Massachusetts, you will have a political powder keg for politicians who refuse to pay heed to public opinion," Daniels saiD．"This will change the political landscape. "William Reppy, a Duke University law professor, agreed that a challenge to the non- recognition of gay marriages across state lines will be critical—perhaps what ultimately decides the issue."There will be a split of authority—one state court will say it’s valid, another will say it isn’t," Reppy predicteD．"Then the US Supreme Court would have their hand forced, and hear the case. They don’t let splits of authority run rampant around the country for very long. \ Which of the following statement is true of Matt Daniels （）
President Bush’s push to oust Saddam Hussein (1) power soon became more than a foreign-policy initiative; the (2) and his allies used it as a wedge issue (3) Democrats in the run-up to the 2002 elections."After 9/11, he (4) a country that said, ’We’re ready to follow,’" (5) Rep. Rahm Emanual, D-Ⅲ., a former top aide to President Bill (6) and now a member of the House Democratic leadership. "There (7) so much we could have done. But he said, ’Go shopping’, (8) then he divided the nation. "The hyper-political push for (9) cost him the support of Democrats; there would be no (10) big bipartisan successes for him to celebrate, such as his (11) education law, No Child Left BehinD．Republicans stayed with him, (12) , and while they controlled Congress, that was often enough. It (13) him politically potent through the 2002 and 2004 campaigns.But (14) spending programs and other breaks with conservative dogma hurt the (15) standing inside the GOP, and he never really worked the Washingtongame to (16) relationships with members of Congress.In his (17) term, Democrats scuttled Social Security reform even before the president (18) file a bill. Opposition to Bush became their organizing principle—the formula they rode to success in 2006, (19) the botched federal response to Hurricane Katrina and a continuing war left (20) as damaged goods. （2）处填入（）。
微信支付 
支付宝支付