President Clinton once presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian honor.

A . 将文本分段显示 B . 中断文本中的某一行 C . 给网页命名 D . 将文本按原样进行显示

A . DT B . Para config check C . network statistics D . cluster handoff and throughput evaluation

A . 正确 B . 错误

A . 正确 B . 错误

A . will lift B . will be lifted C . will close D . will be closed

A . Yes, I am Clinton. B . Thank you for calling me. C . This is Clinton speaking. D . Yes, who are you?

A . 乙酰唑胺 B . 拉坦前列素 C . 噻吗心胺 D . 地匹福林 E . 阿法根

A . A、AU B . B、GU C . C、AG D . D、CG E . E、AC

A．减去投资金额 B．加上投资金额 C．乘以投资金额 D．除以投资金额

A．Nixon B．Carter C．Clinton D．Bush

A．标题标记 B．预排版标记 C．转行标记 D．文字效果标记

Blatter, a geek of dispensing FIFA's hundreds of million in annual revenue to inspire loyalty, even stands a good chance of reelection. At least he did. Since mid-March, he has seen a credible challenger emerge in Issa Hayatou, president of the African Football Confederation. Hayatou, a 55-year-old from Cameroon, leads a group of FIFA reformers that also includes FIFA Vice-President Lennart Johansson, a Swede who lost the presidential election to Blatter in 1998. These contenders' mission: to end what they call the culture of secrecy and lack of accountability that threatens FIFA with financial disaster. Representatives of the world's 204 national soccer associations meet in Seoul on May 29, and the rebels are given a chance of unseating Blatter. But even they concede that the FIFA honcho won't be easy to dislodge. Blatter's staying power seems incredible, given the array of misdeeds attributed to him and his circle. However, there are signs that FI FA's troubles are bigger than Blatter is saying. The insurgents have already won one victory: They persuaded the rest of the executive board to order an audit of FIFA finances. But Blatter—who claims, through a spokesman, that the accusations are a smear campaign—should not be underestimated. At least publicly, sponsors and member associations remain remarkably silent with the controversy. For example, there is no outward sign of outrage from German sports equipment maker Adidas-Salomon, which is spending much of its $625 million marketing budget on the World Cup. "We don't expect current developments within FIFA to have a negative impact on our expectations" for the World Cup, says Michael Riehl, Adidas head of global sports marketing. The conventional wisdom is that fans don't care about FIFA politics. Says Bernd Schiphorst, president of Hertha BSC Berlin, a top-ranked German team: "I've no fear that all these discussions are going to touch the event. "Still, the Olympic bribery scandals and the doping affair in the Tour de France show that sleazy dealings can stain the most venerable athletic spectacle. "For the Good of the Game" is FIFA's official motto. The next few months should show whether it rings true. The writer's attitude toward FIFA President Blatter seems to be that of A．slight support. B．high appreciation. C．strong contempt. D．reserved consent.

In a written statement, Mr. Bush says the Taleban continues to provide safe haven and a base of operations for Osama bin Laden. He goes on to say the bin Laden operation has committed, and threatens to commit, acts of violence against Americans. Why does President Bush renew sanctions on the Taleban forces？ A．Taleban forces killed some Americans. B．Taleban forces attacked other countries. C．Taleban forces are a terrorist organization. D．Taleban forces continue to provide safe haven and a base of operations for Osama bin Laden.

They got it. We fed them loans, knowing that much of the money would disappear corruptly. We turned away from atrocity in Chechnya lest we weaken the new Russian state. But most important, we went weak in the knees on missile defense. The prospect of American antiballistic missiles upset the Russians. And upsetting the Russians was something we simply were not to do. The Russians cannot keep up with American technology. And they fear that an American missile shield will render obsolete their last remnant of greatness: their monster, nuclear-tipped missiles. So they insist that we adhere to a 1972 treaty signed with the defunct Soviet Union that prohibited either side from developing missile defenses. That the treaty is obsolete-it long predates the world of rogue states racing to acquire missile-launched weapons of mass destruction-does not concern the Russians. Withdraw from the treaty, they said, and you have destroyed the "strategic stability" on which the peace of the world depends. The Clinton Administration took that threat seriously-so seriously that for eight years it equivocated on building an American ABM system. Finally, President Clinton promised to decide by June 2000. Come June, he punted. Eight years, and no defense. But the bear was content. Bear contentment was never a high priority for Ronald Reagan. He offered a different model for dealing with the Russians. The 1980s model went by the name of peace through strength. But it was more than that. It was judicious but unapologetic unilateralism. It was willingness-in the face of threats and bluster from foreign adversaries and nervous apprehension from domestic critics-to do what the U.S. needed to do for its own security. Regardless. It was Reagan who famously proposed a missile shield, and even more famously refused to barter it away at the Reykjavik summit, an event many historians consider the turning point in the cold war. That marked the beginning of the Soviets' definitive realization that they were going to lose the arms race to the U.S.-and that neither threats nor cajoling would dissuade the U.S. from running it. This decade starts with a return to the unabashed unilateralism of the 1980s. It began last year with a speech by George W. Bush proposing that the U.S. build weapons to meet American needs-and not to accommodate the complaints or gain the agreement of other countries. For 40 years the U.S. would not cut its offensive nuclear missiles except in conjunction with Soviet cuts. Bush's refreshing question was: Why？ We don't need Rnssians cutting our offensive weapons through arms-control treaties. And we don't need Russians telling us whether or not to build defensive weapons. This was the genesis of the Bush Doctrine, now taking shape as the Administration takes power. Its motto is, we build to suit-ourselves. Accordingly, the President and the Secretary of Defense have been unequivocal about their determination to go ahead with a missile defense. They staked their claim. And what happened？ Did the sky fall, as the Clinton Russian experts warned？ On the contrary. Convinced at last of American seriousness, the Russians immediately acquiesced. After just one month of Bush, Moscow has come forward with its very own missile-defense plan. The fact that it is not well sketched out and that it is in part designed to split the U.S. off from Europe is beside the point. The Russians have responded, as did the Soviets before them, to American firmness. Faced with reality, they accommodate it. Who defines reality; there lies the difference between this Administration and the last. Clinton let Russian opposition define reality. Bush, like Reagan, understands that the U.S. can resha A．the Russians understood that they needed nurturing from their new American friends B．the Russians knew Americans will surely help them C．upsetting the Russians was something the Americans simply were not to do D．the Americans shouldn't worry about upsetting the Russians

A Right B Wrong C Not mentioned

A Right B Wrong C Not mentioned

A．free(p); pre-＞next=p-＞next; B．free(p-＞next);pre-＞next=p-＞next; C．pre-＞next=p-＞next; free(p); D．p-＞next=pre-＞next;free(p);

A．标题标记 B． 预排版标记 C． 转行标记 D． 文字效果标记