Begin with the fuss over wiretapping．According to Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, George Bush has assumed unchecked power that is reserved only for kings and potentates.Barbara Boxer of California says there is no excuse for Mr Bushs actions．A growing chorus of outrage, including Congressman John Lewis and John Dean (of Watergate fame), has suggested impeachment．Over at the Nation, Jonathan Schell argues that Bushes abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history．The administration is not a dictatorship, he concedes, before adding that it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form．”
　　And the proof of dictatorship? On more than 30 different occasions, Mr Bush authorised the tapping of telephone calls made by American citizens．Tapping domestic telephone calls without getting a warrant is illegal．But Mr Bush claims that his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief allowed him to do so because all these calls were international ones．He maintains that going to the courts would have been cumbersome and that his first priority was to prevent another terrorist attack．
　　You can pick at this reasoning--for instance, there are retrospective warrants that might have donethe trick．But it is hard to claim that Mr Bush is being outlandish on any of these scores．John Schmidt, an associate attorney-general under Bill Clinton, thinks Mr Bush has the constitutional power to approve such taps; General Michael Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence, has argued that the programme has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States．
　　That assertion is for Congress to probe, but the real argument here is surely one of nuance: it has to do with how much freedom you should reasonably curtail in the name of security．Mr Bush may have crossed a line, but he has hardly smashed through it．Most European countries have more intrusive surveillance regimes than Americas．As for impeachment, the prospect of having to defend Mr Bush against the charge that he went a tad too far trying to avert a terrorist attack is the sort of thing Karl Rove salivates about．[353 words]
　　1．What led to the challenge to President George Bushes power?
　　A．His abuses of presidential power．
　　B．The characteristics of his administration．
　　C．A growing chorus of outrage to his recent actions．
　　D．His authorization of tapping of telephone calls．
　　2．Bush’s excuse for wiretapping is that
　　A．he has constitutional power to do so
　　B．the prevention of terrorism is the top priority
　　C．international calls might be made by terrorists
　　D．no warrant is needed for tapping telephone calls
　　3．______least supports Bushes authorization of wiretapping．
　　A．The press
　　B．John Schmidt
　　C．Michael Hayden
　　D．Jonathan Schell
　　4．The author believes that______
　　A．freedom must be sacrificed to certain extent to safeguard security
　　B．even Congress has no more power to wiretap than the President
　　C．Mr Bush has been successful in fighting against terrorism
　　D．Mr Bush went too far trying to avert another terrorist attack
　　5．The author______Mr Bushes authorization of wiretapping in many occasions．
　　A．despises
　　B．discusses
　　C．appreciates
　　D．approves of

　难句透析
　　①The administration“is not a dictatorship”，he concedes，before adding[that“it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form．”examda]
　　【结构】本句中，“he concedes”是插入语。动名词短语“adding…”用做介词“before”的宾语；方括号所标示的部分是动名词“addin9”的宾语从句。
　　【释义】他勉强承认，本届政府“还不是独裁机构”，但接着又补充说，“确实有些特征显示政府正开始走向独裁。” 
　　②He maintains”[that going to the courts would have been cumbersome]and[that his first priority was to pre— vent another terrorist attack]．
　　【结构】两个方括号所标示的部分是谓语动词“maintains”后并列的两个宾语从句。动名词短语“90ing to the courts”是第一个宾语从句中的主语。
　　【释义】布什坚持认为，去法庭申请许可证太麻烦，他首先要做的是防止另一次恐怖袭击。
　　③You can pick at this reasoning--for instance，there are retrospective warrants[that might have done the trick]．
　　【结构】本句中，“pick at”的意思是“找…的岔子”。破折号后面的部分是补充说明。方括号所标示的后置定语从句修饰“warrants”。
　　【释义】听到这样的推理逻辑，你可能会去挑错。比如，那是在强词夺理为过去所做的事情辩护。
　　④”That assertion is for Congress to probe。butthe real argument here is surely one of nuance：it has to do with[how much freedom you should reasonably curtail in the name of security]．