Bob Drogin, a reporter on the Los Angeles Times, relates how over the next couple of years Curveball impressed his interrogators with his detailed knowledge of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes. He spoke at length of such things as mobile laboratories that were being used to cook up lethal bugs. The Americans were desperate to have a look at him, too. But the Germans fobbed off their rivals with transcripts and reports, blocking direct access to their prize informer.

Nevertheless, Curveball's story became an important part of the American government's case for invading Iraq. Information taken from his testimony cropped up in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 (which maintained with “high confidence” that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons); in George Bush's state-of-the-union message in January 2003 (which included a reference to “mobile weapons labs designed to produce germ-warfare agents”); and in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN the following month (which featured computer-generated images of those mobile weapons labs, based on descriptions and drawings by Curveball).

But it was all rubbish. Curveball was a low-level drone and borderline nutcase with a gift for telling people what they wanted to hear. In the run-up to the war—despite the doubts expressed by some experts about Curveball's reliability—nobody bothered to check out his story properly. It was not until 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, that the CIA admitted that Curveball had foxed them. He “appears to be fabricating in this stream of reporting”, the burn notice read.

Mr. Drogin points out that, in the aftermath of September 11th 2001, critics lambasted American intelligence for failing to “connect the dots that might have prevented the terrorist attacks”. What makes the Curveball case so dreadful, he reckons, is that this time they simply invented the dots. “If Curveball fused fact and fiction, others twisted and magnified his account in grotesque ways,” he concludes. “Time and again, bureaucratic rivalries, tawdry ambitions and spineless leadership proved more important than professional integrity.” You can just about hear old Alec Leamas muttering “Told you so.”

1. The hero (heroes) of the book Curveball is (are) _____.

[A] Alec Leamas who severely criticizes the profession of spy

[B] a squalid procession of spies

[C] an Iraqi chemical engineer named Curveball

[D] the spies that work for CIA ahead of the Iraqi war

2. Curveball successfully got political asylum in Germany because _____.

[A] he was wanted by Americans

[B] he was the principal of Iraq's bio-chemical engineering project

[C] he boasted of his adequate knowledge on Iraq's information with full confidence

[D] he succeeded in making the Germans believe that he was a reliable and useful informer

3. Curveball's reliability was not suspected despite some experts' doubt because _____.

[A] his knowledge of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs sounded true

[B] he was good at providing information that catered to the demand of western governments

[C] his story has been used in many important government reports

[D] American intelligence neglected their duty

4. The word “dots” (Line 2, Paragraph 6) most probably means _____.

[A] points

[B] marks

[C] falsities

[D] evidences

5. By mentioning old Alec Leamas' muttering “Told you so.” the author implies that _____.

[A] spies are good story-teller

[B] fact is often confused with fiction

[C] people are easily trusting the spies

[D] Alec Leamas is more intelligent than Curveball





文章剖析


这篇文章介绍了“诡计”成为间谍的过程和骗局。第一段以Alec Leamas的言论引出对间谍的评价；第二段和第三段讲述“诡计”是如何成为间谍的；第四段讲述“诡计”的故事为美国重要的报告所引用；第五段讲述了“诡计”的骗局；第六段分析了“诡计”行骗成功的原因。





词汇注释


spook n. 鬼，幽灵

dingy adj. 暗黑的，邋遢的

snarl vi. 咆哮着说，怒骂

squalid adj. 下流的，卑鄙的

pansy n. 女性化的男子

sadist n. 虐待狂者

asylum n.（政治）避难

fob off（用借口）把…对付掉

drone n. 游手好闲者，寄生虫

nutcase n. 疯子

lambaste vi. 严责





难句突破


① He asked for political asylum and knew that he would greatly improve his chances of getting it if he could make himself interesting to the intelligence services.

主体句式：He asked for... and knew that...

结构分析：这是一个并列句，后面分句的结构较复杂。该分句的宾语从句是一个带有条件状语从句的句子。

句子译文：他申请了政治避难，而且他明白，如果能让情报机构对自己感兴趣的话，那么就可以增加申请成功的几率。

② Information taken from his testimony cropped up in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 (which maintained with “high confidence” that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons); in George Bush's state-of-the-union message in January 2003 (which included a reference to “mobile weapons labs designed to produce germ-warfare agents”); and in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN the following month (which featured computer-generated images of those mobile weapons labs, based on descriptions and drawings by Curveball).

主体句式：Information... cropped up in...; in...; and in...

结构分析：这是一个简单句，状语是由三个并列的介词短语组成的；每个介词短语后面括号中的内容是对前面名词的修饰；在最后一个介词短语后面的括号中，过去分词短语based on...是用来修饰前面的images的。

句子译文：从他证词中摘录的信息出现在2002年10月的《国家情报评估》中（该评估将伊拉克拥有化学和生物武器定为“高级机密”）；也出现在布什总统2003年1月的国情咨文中（该国情咨文提到了“旨在生产细菌战药剂的移动武器实验室”）；还出现在次月鲍威尔向联合国的陈词中（该陈词介绍电脑模拟的移动武器实验室的图像，这些都是基于“诡计”的描述和绘图而制作出来的。）





题目分析


1. The hero (heroes) of the book Curveball is (are) _____.

[A] Alec Leamas who severely criticizes the profession of spy

[B] a squalid procession of spies

[C] an Iraqi chemical engineer named Curveball

[D] the spies that work for CIA ahead of the Iraqi war

1. 《诡计》一书的主人公是 _____。

[A] 严厉斥责间谍行业的Alec Leamas

[B] 一群卑鄙的间谍

[C] 一个名叫“诡计”的伊拉克化学工程师

[D] 伊拉克战争爆发前为中情局工作的间谍

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：细节题。虽然文章整篇都在谈论“诡计”，再加上书的名字也是这个，很容易让人以为该书的主人公是“诡计”，但是文章第二段提到该书介绍了一群这样的间谍，只不过其中最主要的人物是“诡计”而已。因此，答案为B。

2. Curveball successfully got political asylum in Germany because _____.

[A] he was wanted by Americans

[B] he was the principal of Iraq's bio-chemical engineering project

[C] he boasted of his adequate knowledge of Iraq's informa-tion with full confidence

[D] he succeeded in making the Germans believe that he was a reliable and useful informer

2. “诡计”在德国成功地得到了政治避难是因为 _____。

[A] 美国人想要得到他

[B] 他是伊拉克生物化学工程项目的主管

[C] 他满怀信心地吹嘘自己对于伊拉克高级机密信息的充分了解

[D] 他成功地让德国人相信他是一名可靠且有用的告密者

答案：D　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：推理题。文章第二段提到，“诡计”明白，如果他能引起德方情报机构的兴趣的话，就能提高申请政治避难的成功率，最终他也的确成功了。文章第三段就提到他讲述了许多伊拉克的军事机密，让大家认为他很重要，但文章下面提到这些机密都是他捏造的。因此，他能成功地得到避难的原因就是让德国相信他有价值。选项D最为符合题意。

3. Curveball's reliability was not suspected despite some experts' doubt because _____.

[A] his knowledge of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs sounded true

[B] he was good at providing information that catered to the demand of western governments

[C] his story has been used in many important government reports

[D] American intelligence neglected their duty

3. 尽管一些专家表示过怀疑，但是“诡计”的可靠性最终并没有受到怀疑，是因为 _____。

[A] 他对伊拉克的化学和生物武器项目的了解听起来很真实

[B] 他善于为西方政府提供他们想要的信息

[C] 他的故事在许多重要的政府报告中都被引用

[D] 美国情报机构失职

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆

分析：推理题。第五段提到，“诡计”的本领就是人们想要听到什么他就说什么，人们总是容易轻信自己潜意识中觉得可能的事情，他就是抓住了人们的这个心理进行欺骗的。所以虽然有一些专家表示怀疑，最终却没有人去调查。因此，选项B最为符合题意。

4. The word “dots” (Line 2, Paragraph 6) most probably means _____.

[A] points

[B] marks

[C] falsities

[D] evidences

4. dots这个词（第六段第二行）最有可能的意思是 _____。

[A] 要点

[B] 记号

[C] 谎言

[D] 证据

答案：C　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：猜词题。该词所在的原文为：Mr. Drogin points out that, in the aftermath of September 11th 2001, critics lambasted American intelligence for failing to “connect the dots that might have prevented the terrorist attacks”.从上下文可以分析得出，“诡计”提供的信息大部分都是纯粹的谎言，答案中的选项C比较符合题意。

5. By mentioning old Alec Leamas' muttering “Told you so.” the author implies that _____.

[A] spies are good story-teller

[B] fact is often confused with fiction

[C] people are easily trusting the spies

[D] Alec Leamas is more intelligent than Curveball

5. 作者提到老Alec Leamas嘟囔着说“告诉你吧”，这暗示了 _____。

[A] 间谍们是很会编故事的人

[B] 事实经常和编造的故事混淆

[C] 人们容易轻信间谍

[D] Alec Leamas比“诡计”更加聪明

答案：A　难度系数：☆☆☆☆

分析：推理题。文章最后以老Alec Leamas的这句话结束是带有总结性意味的，“Told you so.”的意思好像就是说这些都是告诉你的，并不一定是事实。而且话从一个间谍口中说出，其实就是说间谍是最会编造事实的人，因此，选项A最为符合题意。





参考译文


从这本书你可以想象Alec Leamas，这个《从寒冷中来的间谍》一书中幽灵式的主角坐着11路公共汽车，前往他那位于河北岸伦敦自治区Hammersmith内的昏暗公寓。“你们觉得间谍是什么人？ 牧师、圣徒还是殉教者？”Leamas咆哮着，“他们不过是一群卑鄙的傻子，是叛徒；还有娘娘腔、施虐狂和酒鬼，他们只是假扮牛仔或是印第安人，来让他们糜烂的生活看起来光鲜一些。”

显然，这一切都已经变了。《诡计》呈现给我们的是一群真实生活中卑鄙的傻子、叛徒和游戏玩家，他们也在美化自己糜烂的生活。他们中的主角是一名伊拉克化学工程师，他于1999年在没有签证的情况下定居德国。他申请了政治避难，而且他明白，如果能让情报机构对自己感兴趣的话，那么就可以增加申请成功的几率。他也这样做了。没过多久，他就引起了情报机构的高度注意，也有了自己的代号——“诡计”。

《洛杉矶时报》的记者Bob Drogin讲述了在之后的两年中，“诡计”如何通过详细描述伊拉克的化学和生物武器项目，最终给审问他的人留下了深刻的印象。他详细地描述了用来制造有毒细菌的移动实验室。美国人也急切地希望见到他。但是德国人用了一些转述和报告来应付他们的对手，这样美国人就不能与这个金牌告密者直接取得联系了。

但是，“诡计”的故事成为美国政府入侵伊拉克的重要理由之一。从他证词中摘录的信息出现在2002年10月的《国家情报评估》中（该评估将伊拉克拥有化学和生物武器定为“高级机密”）；也出现在布什总统2003年1月的国情咨文中（该国情咨文提到了“旨在生产细菌战药剂的移动武器实验室”）；还出现在次月鲍威尔向联合国的陈词中（该陈词介绍了电脑模拟的移动武器实验室的图像，这些都是基于“诡计”的描述和绘图而制作出来的）。

但这些都是胡说八道。“诡计”是一个低级的闲人，也是一个疯子，他的本领就是告诉大家他们希望听到的东西。尽管一些专家怀疑“诡计”的可信度，但随着战争的升温，没人再去费心地查证他的故事了。直到2004年，也就是入侵伊拉克一年之后，中情局才承认“诡计”愚弄了他们。他“好像在其报告中捏造事实”，通告这样写道。

Drogin先生指出，在2001年9月11日之后，批评家严厉地责骂美国的情报机构没能“把疑点联系起来，本来还可以避免恐怖袭击的”。他承认“诡计”事件的可怕之处在于，这次是他们自己捏造了这些疑点。“如果‘诡计’把事实和虚构混在了一起，那么其他人则是以奇怪的方式把这些混杂在一起的东西扭曲、放大了，”他总结道，“实践再次证明了官僚敌对、俗气的野心以及没有骨气的领导要比专业的真正品质更为致命，”你听，老Alec Leamas嘀咕着“告诉你吧”。





Unit 10


TEXT ONE


Revisions in the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (S. 2029) will now make it a Class D federal felony for physicians to accept more than $25 annually in gifts or other rewards from pharmaceutical companies or biological product and medical device manufacturers.

The revised bill, introduced last fall by Senators Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, requires full disclosure of gifts, through a Department of Health and Human Services online system, by both companies and individual physicians, and it revokes caps on non-disclosure penalties for companies.

The legislation targets offending individual physicians, hospitals, schools, and other medical institutions that deal directly with patients. It also makes it a federal offense for medical industries to circumvent customary gift-giving practices through third parties, such as lawyers and insurance companies, or via “educational” events.

It reverses earlier legislation that would have preempted more stringent physician sunshine laws passed by the states. The previous version of the law limited penalties to $10000 for non-disclosure, and $100000 for companies that “knowingly” fail to disclose gifts to physicians. The new bill establishes a lower limit for fines, but not an upper limit, and requires that that penalties make into account histories of gift-giving, product specifics and histories, overall corporate revenue, and other variables, before appropriate fines can be assessed.

Patients' rights and medical ethics groups, like the New England Medical Ethics Commission in Boston, are exultant. “It's not like the A. M. A or [pharmaceutical trade association] PhRMA were ever going to comply with their own stated standards,” says Patty Williams, Director of Communications for the commission. Williams is referring to the American Medical Association's 1991 guidelines on gifts to physicians from industry, which stemmed a tide of blatant gift-giving in the 1960s, but have been criticized for allowing new byways for abuse: free lunches and dinners, travel and honoraria, and the hemorrhaging of complimentary pens, coffee mugs, and other product-related paraphernalia into doctors' offices.

“What we really need is a sea change in the medical profession wherein physicians realize that it is not ok to get gifts or fill our offices with advertisements for products. It demeans patient care,” says Mount Sinai School of Medicine professor Dr. Joseph Ross. While programs like the Prescription Project, which scrutinize pharmaceutical company information and sales practices, have been in place for several years in states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, their effect is limited by the willingness of doctors to abide by ethical standards.

“This will definitely make it a lot harder for us to get out products to customers,” says Sampson Browning, spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which anticipates large losses of revenue due to the new legislation.

“I haven't paid for lunch since last February, and I think I ate at home that day,” says Dr. Bruce Arbogast, Director of Pine Grove Medical Center in Chicago. “Do the math. Do you think I can afford to say no when the drug reps knock on my door?” From now on, doctors will have to, or risk up to ten years imprisonment.

1. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of the revised bill?

[A] The revised bill gives those who have direct connections with patients a serious warning.

[B] The revised bill withdraws the upper limits on non-disclosure penalties for companies.

[C] The revised bill is more severe since there is neither lower nor upper ultimate for the penalty.

[D] The revised bill requires full disclosure of gifts via an online system operated by the Department of Health and Human Services.

2. What's the main function of the revised bill?

[A] It requires that penalties take into account histories of gift-giving, product specifics and other variables, before appropriate fines can be assessed.

[B] It makes some contributions to the patients' rights and medical ethics.

[C] It ends the tide of blatant gift-giving in the 1960s.

[D] It completely changes the medical profession.

3. What Patty Williams wants to express is that _____.

[A] the earlier legislations are useless

[B] he agrees with the revised bill

[C] the revised bill will not be under criticism

[D] any new methods to get benefits from medical profession will be prevented by the revised bill

4. Why does Sampson Browning take a pessimistic attitude towards his Company's future?

[A] Because most of its revenue comes from those ways the revised bill prohibits.

[B] Because its products can't be sold to the customers any more.

[C] Because the revised bill sets a lot of limits for his company.

[D] Because he thinks there are no other ways for his firm to make money.

5. From what Dr. Bruce Arbogast says, we can infer that _____.

[A] before last February, he always had lunch for free

[B] he can reject any drug salesmen

[C] to some extent, the revised bill has worked

[D] since the punishment is so severe, he and other doctors wouldn't take risks





文章剖析


这篇文章是对《医生报酬阳光法案》修正案基本情况的介绍。第一段讲述了《医生报酬阳光法案》修订部分的规定；第二段介绍了这部法案提出的背景；第三段讲述了该法案的适用人群，并指出通过第三方送礼也被视为犯罪；第四段通过与早期法律的对比，介绍了新法案的罚款限额及确定罚款金额需要考虑的因素；第五段到第八段讲述了不同利益团体和个人对这部法案的看法及该法案对一些人造成的影响。