At the start of the year, The Independent on Sunday argued that there were three over-whelming reasons why Iraq should not be invaded: there was no proof that Saddam posed an imminent threat; Iraq would be even more unstable as a result of its liberation; and a conflict would increase the threat posed by terrorists. What we did not know was that Tony Blair had received intelligence and advice that raised the very same points.

　　Last week’s report from the Intelligence and Security Committee included the revelation that some of the intelligence had warned that a war against Iraq risked an increased threat of terrorism. Why did Mr. Blair not make this evidence available to the public in the way that so much of the alarmist intelligence on Saddam’s weapons was published? Why did he choose to ignore the intelligence and argue instead that the war was necessary, precisely because of the threat posed by international terrorism?

　　There have been two parliamentary investigations into this war and the Hutton inquiry reopens tomorrow. In their different ways they have been illuminating, but none of them has addressed the main issues relating to the war. The Foreign Affairs Committee had the scope to range widely, but chose to become entangled in the dispute between the Government and the BBC. The Intelligence Committee reached the conclusion that the Government’s file on Saddam’s weapons was not mixed up, but failed to explain why the intelligence was so hopelessly wrong. The Hutton inquiry is investigating the death of Dr. David Kelly, a personal tragedy of marginal relevance to the war against Iraq.

　　Tony Blair has still to come under close examination about his conduct in the building-up to war. Instead, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is being fingered as if he were master-minding the war behind everyone’s backs from the Ministry of Defence. Mr. Hoon is not a minister who dares to think without consulting Downing Street first. At all times he would have been dancing to Downing Street’s tunes. Mr. Blair would be wrong to assume that he can draw a line under all of this by making Mr. Hoon the fall-guy. It was Mr. Blair who decided to take Britain to war, and a Cabinet of largely skeptical ministers that backed him. It was Mr. Blair who told MPs that unless Saddam was removed, terrorists would pose a greater global threat―even though he had received intelligence that suggested a war would lead to an increase in terrorism.

　　Parliament should be the forum in which the Prime Minister is called more fully to account, but Iain Duncan Smith’s support for the war has neutered an already inept opposition. In the absence of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is left to newspapers like this one to keep asking the most important questions until the Prime Minister answers them.

　　1. We learn from the first two paragraphs that.

　　[A] the evidence should have been made available to the Parliament

　　[B] the necessity of war has been exaggerated by the Committee

　　[C] Blair had purposely ignored some of the intelligence he received

　　[D] it was The Independent that first revealed the intelligence

　　2. The author thinks that the Hutton enquiry is.

　　[A] also beside the mark [B] hopelessly wrong

　　[C] illuminating in its way [D] wide in scope

　　3. By “chose to become entangled” (Line 4,Paragraph 3), the author implies that.

　　[A] the dispute between the Government and the BBC was unnecessary

　　[B] the Foreign Affairs Committee had mixed up the argument

　　[C] it was entirely wrong to carry out such investigations

　　[D] the Intelligence Committee shouldn’t mix up with the affair

　　4. It can be learned from Paragraph 4 that.

　　[A] most ministers were suspicious of Hoon’s conduct

　　[B] Hoon will not do anything without consulting Blair

　　[C] Blair should not divert his responsibility to his Cabinet

　　[D] MPs think that it is Blair who drags the country into the war

　　5. What is the author’s attitude towards the Parliament?

　　[A] Indignant. [B] Skeptical. [C] Inquisitive. [D] Critical.

　　參考答案：1.C 2.A 3.A 4.B 5.D

　　試題解析:

　　1. 從文章前兩段我們可以知道。

　　[A] 證據(jù)本應(yīng)該讓議會(huì)獲得

　　[B] 委員會(huì)夸大了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的必要性

　　[C] 布萊爾有意忽略他獲得的一些情報(bào)

　　[D] 是《獨(dú)立報(bào)》首先公布了這個(gè)情報(bào)

　　本題考查事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)。第二段末句以問(wèn)句的形式指出，布萊爾選擇了無(wú)視情報(bào)而只強(qiáng)調(diào)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的必要性。因此[C]正確。[B]將“布萊爾”換成了“委員會(huì)”，是錯(cuò)誤的。第一段開(kāi)始指出，《獨(dú)立報(bào)》提出了伊拉克不應(yīng)該受到侵略的幾點(diǎn)重要原因;該段末句則指出，我們不知道的是布萊爾已經(jīng)收到了提出以上幾點(diǎn)的情報(bào)或建議。由此可見(jiàn)，早在《獨(dú)立報(bào)》公布這個(gè)情報(bào)之前已有其它部門(mén)對(duì)此作了報(bào)道。所以，《獨(dú)立報(bào)》不是第一個(gè)公布情報(bào)的。[D]錯(cuò)誤。文章前兩段沒(méi)有涉及“議會(huì)”，排除[A]。

　　2. 作者認(rèn)為赫頓調(diào)查是。

　　[A] 不準(zhǔn)確的，離題的 [B] 嚴(yán)重錯(cuò)誤的

　　[C] 以它自己的方式進(jìn)行闡述 [D] 涉及范圍很廣的

　　 本題考查作者觀點(diǎn)。第三段第二句提到，兩項(xiàng)議會(huì)調(diào)查(其中之一是赫頓調(diào)查)用不同的方法進(jìn)行闡述，但卻沒(méi)有一個(gè)涉及到關(guān)于這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的癥結(jié)所在。由此可見(jiàn)，作者認(rèn)為這些調(diào)查是不準(zhǔn)確的。[A]beside the mark與文中none … has addressed the main issues是同義替換。[B]是該段第四句中對(duì)“政府關(guān)于薩達(dá)姆武器問(wèn)題的檔案”的評(píng)價(jià)。[C]雖然出現(xiàn)了文中類(lèi)似的表達(dá)，但含義出現(xiàn)了偏差。[D]是該段第三句中對(duì)“外事委員會(huì)”的評(píng)價(jià)。

　　3. 第三段第四行中作者提到“chose to become entangled”的含義是。

　　[A] 政府與英國(guó)廣播公司之間的糾紛是不必要的

　　[B] 外事委員會(huì)使這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論變得混亂

　　[C] 進(jìn)行這樣的調(diào)查是完全錯(cuò)誤的

　　[D] 情報(bào)委員會(huì)不應(yīng)該攙和到這件事中來(lái)

　　] 本題考查推理引申。題干這句話出現(xiàn)在第三段第三句。整個(gè)第三段主要圍繞“對(duì)伊戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的調(diào)查”展開(kāi)論述。該段第二句對(duì)兩項(xiàng)調(diào)查作出評(píng)價(jià)，指出它們都沒(méi)有涉及到關(guān)系這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的癥結(jié)所在。第三句指出，外事委員會(huì)要調(diào)查的范圍很廣，卻讓自己糾纏于政府和英國(guó)廣播公司的糾紛之中。由此可見(jiàn)，作者認(rèn)為“政府與英國(guó)廣播公司的糾紛”不是關(guān)系這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的關(guān)鍵性問(wèn)題，[A]正確。該段中作者沒(méi)有完全否認(rèn)“調(diào)查”的必要性，排除[C];也沒(méi)有對(duì)調(diào)查方(外事委員會(huì)或情報(bào)委員會(huì))進(jìn)行批評(píng)，排除[B]和[D]。

　　4. 從第四段可以得知。

　　[A] 大部分部長(zhǎng)對(duì)胡恩的行為表示懷疑

　　[B] 胡恩在沒(méi)有征求布萊爾的意見(jiàn)之前不會(huì)做任何事情

　　[C] 布萊爾不應(yīng)該將他的責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)交給內(nèi)閣

　　[D] 國(guó)會(huì)議員們認(rèn)為是布萊爾使國(guó)家卷入戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的

　　[本題考查事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)。第四段第三、四句提到，胡恩先生不是一個(gè)膽敢不先與唐寧街協(xié)商就獨(dú)自作決定的部長(zhǎng)，無(wú)論何時(shí)他總是合著唐寧街的拍子跳舞。唐寧街是首相的官邸所在，這里指代“英國(guó)首相，英國(guó)政府”。因此可知[B]正確。該段倒數(shù)第二句提到，持很大懷疑態(tài)度的部長(zhǎng)們組成的內(nèi)閣支持著布萊爾，[A]將“布萊爾”換成了“胡恩”。該段倒數(shù)第二句也提到作者認(rèn)為是布萊爾使國(guó)家卷入戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，[D]將作者的觀點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)嫁到國(guó)會(huì)議員們身上，因此錯(cuò)誤。[C]文中未提。

　　5. 作者對(duì)待議會(huì)的態(tài)度是。

　　[A] 憤怒的 [B] 懷疑的 [C] 好奇的 [D] 批評(píng)的

　　本題考查推理引申。作者對(duì)待議會(huì)的看法出現(xiàn)文章最后一段。該段第一句指出，議會(huì)本應(yīng)該要求首相布萊爾作出充分解釋?zhuān)�但是議會(huì)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人卻對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)表示支持。該段第二句指出，議會(huì)缺乏應(yīng)有的詳細(xì)審查，因此一些報(bào)紙只好不斷向首相提出問(wèn)題。由此可見(jiàn)，作者批判議會(huì)沒(méi)有行使應(yīng)有的職責(zé)，[D]為正確項(xiàng)。