***

Home > 라이브러리 > 상남문고

Part 1. 정치, 군사, 외교

1. 아미티지 미국무부 부장관 기자회견, 인권신장 노력 보고서 발간
U.S. Issues Report on its Efforts to Advance Human Rights (Armitage, Craner news briefing on the release of the report)
[Washington File 24 June 2003] Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage released¹ the report "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2002-2003". In a news briefing at the State Department - Mr. Secretary, there are 92 countries in this report. Does this mean² that the countries we don't have in this report have good records? For example, Turkey is not included in this report. -Questioning on³ Venezuela, the independence of powers, the strength of the Venezuelan institutions and the freedom of expression. I just want to know, if it's in any way different, this report, and which incident would have in the relationships between Venezuela and the United States? -The report talks a lot about the Millennium Challenge Account, at least addresses, says this is going to be important, particularly for Africa. But this program doesn't seem to⁴ have gotten off the ground. Can you give us a sense of where you are on that? -What page are you on? -I have a question about people who are -- what would you say to people who would argue that because Israel and Turkey are not in this list that you have somehow spared U.S.'s -- America's closest allies, who other independent groups have singled out in the past for their human rights abuses? :With regard to⁵ Turkey - My mistake. But what about⁶ Turkey? I mean, Turkey is a -- :Mr. Secretary, is it fair to say⁷ that these are the 92 worst? : Can you say, as a general matter, that there are places where the United States is less aggressive in promoting human rights for fear of⁸ running afoul of an ally? : Yeah, first of all, the Press Office ran out of hard copies.Will your Bureau make more available to the press?⁹ : Well, I know, but it's not quite -- for people as old as I am, it's like really important that we have it. (Laughter.) ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I'll give you mine. (Laughter.) : Great, I'll follow that up. On a somewhat more serious note¹⁰ ,I presume¹¹ that the report covers things like interrogations, torture of detainees, and so on, and so forth. And as you know, there were reports last year, in particular, that the United States was dropping off various detainees from the war on terror to friendly states where more, perhaps, persuasive means could be used in order to obtain information. Do you address this at all? And do you address¹² the fact of those reports and their impact on your efforts to improve the situation in abusive countries? : I read the part about Burma, Myanmar, and this report didn't mention¹³ about the recent detained -- : Yes. Could you add something¹⁴ on the recent detention of the Aung Sang Suu Kyi? : Really related more to¹⁵ the Secretary of State's column in the New York Times this morning. What does the United States think¹⁶ that the neighbors of Zimbabwe can do that, for instance, the West or the United States can't to promote human rights? : You mentioned that you don't turn over detainees unless you extract a pledge¹⁷ that they will not be tortured. : Have you followed up with¹⁸ any of the countries to make sure that that pledge has been adhered to¹⁹ ? : You made a passing reference to France, and I didn't understand. : Can I just follow up on what you said about it's our hope that the neighbors in Zimbabwe and Burma would say that the kinds of governments in Zimbabwe and Burma are not welcome in the region? Do you want to take that a little further and just simply say that it's the U.S. policy that the Government of Mugabe and the Government of Burma, right now, change? : Some people are in any way skeptical of²⁰ such reports of human rights. What are you telling to those people²¹, their non-belief in that? Where are the concrete results of such²² --


¹ : Release 발표하다 ² : 이는 ---을 뜻하느냐 ³ : 에 대해서 물어보자면. ⁴ : -한 것처럼 보이지 않는다 ⁵ : --에 대해 말하자면,--와 관련해 ⁶ : --는 어떠냐,--에 대해 어떻게 생각하나 ⁷ : --이라고 말할 수 있느냐,--이라고 말하는 게 공평하냐 ⁸ : -을 우려해서 ⁹ : 보도자료 좀 더 마련해줄 수 있느냐 ¹⁰ : 좀 심각한 어조로 ¹¹ : 짐작하다.추정하다,assume,suppose, 부사 presumably(probably) 추측컨대,아마도 ¹² : 다루다 ¹³ : 언급하다 ¹⁴ : -에 대해 좀 더 설명해줄 수 있느냐 ¹⁵ : -에 관련된 것이지만 ¹⁶ : -에 대해 미국은 어떻게 생각하느냐 ¹⁷ : -라는 약속을 받아내지 못하면 ¹⁸ : 계속 확인해왔느냐 ¹⁹ : 약속을 잘 지키고 있다는 점을 확실히 하기 위해 ²⁰ : -에 회의적이다


2. 국무회의 이후 부시 대통령에 대한 질문
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER MEETING WITH HIS CABINET
THE WHITE HOUSE. Office of the Press Secretary August 1, 2003 -Thank you, sir. Does your offer still stand for¹ assistance to North Korea if they give up their nuclear program? -And how can you deal with someone like Kim Jong-il, a man you don't trust?


¹ : 여전히 -을 뜻하느냐


3. 파월 미국무부 장관 북한문제 기자회견
Powell Discusses North Korea, Iran, War on Terrorism
[03 August 2003 ] Interview by regional news syndicates You know, you talked about, this is essentially a multi-party kind of¹ thing that's supposed to happen, but isn't the United States a big gorilla, thousand pound gorilla in the room? Really when it comes down to push and shove, it doesn't have to be a direct negotiation between us and them. Is a non-aggression pact an option²? There seems to be a bit of confusion about whether -³ Can you talk about the other parts of the pact, other things they are interested in like economic aid, diplomatic relations? (SECRETARY POWELL: The President has said very often that he cares about the North Korean people and the terrible situation they find themselves in with respect to lack of food, an economy that is not functioning well. Others of our friends who follow North Korea have the same concerns, the Japanese, the South Koreans of course, the Chinese who provide $500 million a year -- we estimate -- in aid, direct aid as well as economic activity and 80 percent of their fuel. And so all of us are concerned about the plight of the North Korean people. And the President has made it clear that he is willing to assist them in relieving the difficulties that they are having. Japan has said so. In fact, last year Prime Minister Koizumi had even made rather specific generous suggestions or offers to what Japan might be able to do. So as we go forward, and as you look at what we're calling it -- what was our nickname for it? Was it -- ) The comprehensive approach⁴ ? (No) The Bold Approach⁵ ? (SECRETARY POWELL: The Bold Approach. Yeah. There are benefits for North Korea for moving away from this kind of activity. And that's what Mr. Kelly went to tell them last October. ) There has been talk in theory about, I believe it was Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz talked about fairly recently about the regime being on the verge of collapse⁶ . People have been talking about that for years. Wouldn't the collapse of that regime be utterly disastrous⁷ in terms of⁸ how to deal with -- to interact with twenty-some odd million -- thirty million -- many of them -- legions of them undernourished. There would probably even be a refugee run, the likes of which we haven't seen in years⁹ . Wouldn't a collapse like that be something of a disaster? What's your sense of why Kim Jong Il did this¹⁰? Why is it in their self-interest to do it at this time? They've been resisting this for a long time. Do you think China is now prepared to apply the kind of leverage that you would like them to¹¹ ? I mean they seem to have the most control. They are also somewhat¹² at least -- somewhat restricted into the tension that you put on this leverage, because they - So the deal is now the non-aggression pact is off the table. It's food and other aid - I thought -- let me get (this) straight¹³ . You said we don't do - (No, you're suggesting -- we don't do pacts, that's right. That part's fine.The question that was asked was, do you expect that there will be a way for you to assist in the future with economic assistance and what not? ) -Question on a different topic 'Iran'. I don't expect you to say that there are negotiations going on, but there are, Mr. Secretary, reports that the Iranians are willing to turn over some senior al-Qaida people that they have, but they would in turn want us to take further action against the MEK in Iraq, disband, eliminate, whatever term you want. Is that a fair description of the situation? Is that a deal worth doing considering¹⁴ the case of the terrorist lists? Are you optimistic?¹⁵ Let's sort of stick with the subject, the flavor of the minute here on Iran. A lot of people are theorizing that they are now the model state for developing nuclear capacity sort of in the modern transparent world. You get to within 12 to 18 months of a program by claiming and essentially disguising it as a civilian energy program, and then when you feel the moment is right you back out of your treaties and then you plow headlong towards a weapons program. And virtually, I mean, the press is loaded with certainly with analysis that would seem to indicate that. What is your take right now on Iran's nuclear energy project? And how concerned are you about where it's going? Senator Graham of Florida was in our office yesterday, and you probably heard all this before, but he says with the war in Iraq we -- the United States -- basically has its priorities wrong, that it lost the momentum on the war on terrorism. What do you say to that? And has the trail gone cold on Usama bin Laden? I believe at the start of the week you were asked about another resolution on Iraq. In when you spoke to Reuters and said you hadn't yet made a decision. Has that changed at all -- ¹⁶ There's a lot of talk on the Hill¹⁷ that we're traveling with¹⁸ the Saudis. A) How much of a mistake would it be if the Senate got together, got the authority¹⁹ in terms of²⁰ votes that it needed to declassify the now infamous 28 pages? And B) is our relationship with the Saudis now, our current relationship, is that sustainable?


¹ : (말습관)일종의, sort of ² : 불가침 협정도 하나의 option인가? (가장 간단한 질문형태) ³ : -할 것인가 말 것인가(혹은 인가 아닌가)를 둘러싸고 약간의 혼동이 있는 것처럼 보인다. ⁴ : 포괄적 접근 ⁵ : 대담한 접근 ⁶ : 북한정권이 붕괴의 조짐이 있다는 점에 대한 이론적 논의가 있어왔다. ⁷ : 북 정권이 붕괴된다면 그것은 엄청난 재앙일지 모를텐데?( wouldn't. 가정적 질문) ⁸ : -하는 점(측면)에서(in terms of) .여기서는 2천만-3천만의 굶주린 북한 주민들을 어떻게 할 것인가 하는 측면에서 ⁹ : 전대미문의 (북한주민 망명) 사태, the likes of:the people or things of the stated type:아앞에서 말한 그 사람, 그런 일) ¹⁰ : 김정일이 그렇게 한 이유에 대해 어떻게 느끼나? (one's sense of) ¹¹ : would like sb. to do sth.= want sb. to do sth.(누가 무엇을 하길 바라다) ¹² : 어느 정도는 ¹³ : 곧바로 얘기하겠다. ¹⁴ : 을 감안하면, ¹⁵ : 잘 될 것이라고 생각하느냐. 희망적으로 보느냐. (opp. pessimistic) ¹⁶ : 상황이 조금이라도 바뀌었느냐 ¹⁷ : 의사당 ¹⁸ : 함께 가다. ¹⁹ : (가정법)만일 상원이 의견을 모아 권한을 갖게되면 얼마만한 문제가 생기나? ²⁰ : 말하자면 -을 통해



4. 존 볼턴 미국무부 차관 기자회견
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN BOLTON,US EMBASSY AUDITORIUM,FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 2003
I'm 000 with TV Asahi of Japan. Mr. Secretary, let me first congratulate you on the very specific result that you have produced in the course of your current trip -- that is North Korea has finally agreed to the multilateral talks that you have been proposing. Now, are you, at the end of your current trip, are you now more optimistic that North Korea will dismantle their nuclear development program completely, irreversibly, and verifiably, or are you still convinced that you will have to continue to exert pressure on them -- the North Koreans -- economically, politically, and militarily, and that the best way to achieve our goal is a regime change in Pyongyang? 000 000 with CNN. Within the 24 hour period, you delivered a very blistering, strong, personal attack against North Korea's leadership as¹ other members of the Bush administration apparently were working on bring together this deal, or this agreement with North Korea to hold the six-party multilateral talks. Was this part of a coordinated good cop, bad cop strategy going on or is it perhaps an indication - as some people in the region suspect - of lack of coordination in Bush administration over North Korea policy?² Hi, I'm with NHK - 0000. Now that North Korea seems to be accepting these multilateral talks, so when and how do you think these multilateral talks will take place and is it going to be preceded by three lateral talks? 000 0000 of The Times. Does Kim Jong-il's government in North Korea have a right to exist? 000 000, Fuji TV. During the multilateral talks we are afraid that the problem of the abduction and the nuclear program will be completely separated. Thanks, my name is 000 000 of PETRA - the news agency of Jordan. I'm sorry, I don't ask about North Korea. What is the American official policy towards the Israeli suspected arms of mass destruction? There are many Arabic governments that have expressed concern about this. Do you feel that it should be dealt with in the same way you dealt with Iraq and North Korea? 000 000 from Kyodo News. Mr. Secretary, is it your understanding that the North Koreans have accepted six-party multilateral talks without any conditions. In the past we have seen acceptance in general and North Koreans putting conditions which could hinder the actual meetings to take place. Are there any details still to be worked out such as non-aggression policy commitment, etc.? 000 000 with Dow Jones. Just a couple of questions. One is on the PSI initiative. What sort of discussions did you have with the Japanese regarding this and what sort of role might they play? Also has there been any progress on the UN Security Council Resolution? 000 000 from Voice of America. You just talked a little bit about Japan, South Korea and the U.S. seeing eye-to-eye on the U.N. Security Council role. What about ³ on North Korea in general? Is there unity? Would you describe it as unity, in terms of⁴ the viewpoint? And the second question is ... let me leave it at that. Hello. I'm 000 from Spanish News Agency. Now that North Korea has apparently accepted the six-way talks, will the North Korean regime get any security guarantee as proposed recently by South Korea? Thank you. To follow up further on the time frame⁵ : On the other hand, once the talks get going, are you expecting this is a process that could take⁶ years? How slowly or quickly are U.S. expectations...or how much patience does the U.S. have once the talks get going, in terms of how long it's going to take to really get a deal and make progress, especially when at the same time, the North Koreans claim, at least, that they are reprocessing their nuclear fuel rods and so forth? So how urgent is it, not only to talk, but to see concrete progress - and if there isn't concrete progress, say⁷ within a year or so, what is that going to mean? I wanted to follow up on my earlier question. The language of your speech yesterday was very striking. You referred to⁸ Kim Jong-il personally as a dictator. You described his country in one place as a hell. And President Bush as well, in the past, has spoken of his personal loathing for Kim Jong-il. Does this, then, imply that Kim Jong-il's government lacks moral legitimacy? Because that's the impression that some people have had. That may be the impression the North Koreans have had, and if they have received that impression, it may affect the trust they are willing to place in any guarantees that you may give them. Does it have moral legitimacy or not? 000 000 with TV Asahi again. You said that the abduction cases should be addressed by the Japanese and South Korean governments separately from the multilateral talks. Now ... OK. North Korea has reportedly⁹ offered to let five children of the Japanese abductees come to Japan and see their parents in Japan, most likely¹⁰ in return for ¹¹ Japan's economic and food assistance. Is that the kind of deal Japan could make with the North Koreans which is acceptable to you?


¹ : -할 때, 하는데 ² : 당신과 행정부내 다른 사람과의 입장 차이는 역할 분담인가 아니면 행정부내 입장조율이 부족하다는 것을 보여주는 것인가? ³ : What news or plans do you have concerning-는 어떻게 돼가나. 어떻게 생각하나. (cf;how about은 어떤 제안을 할 때 사용. Ex.How about a drink? ) ⁴ : 여기서는 관점 면에서 서로 같은가의 뜻 ⁵ : 앞으로의 일정에 대해 좀더 구체적으로 물어보자면 ⁶ : take years:몇 년이 걸리다. how long does it take…얼마나 (시간이) 걸리나. ⁷ : 예컨대 ⁸ : 김정일을 독재자로 지칭했다 ⁹ : 보도에 따르면 ¹⁰ : 아마도 probably ¹¹ : 의 대가로 in exchange for


5. 윤영관 장관 인터뷰
Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan (Joongang Daily interview)
- There has been a big change to the alliance with the United States since the start of the administration. - There has also been a change in North Korea policy. - Haven't relations with the North worsened since the affirmation of the U.S alliance?¹ - Then,isn't there a need to be strong with the North to persuade them? - That could result in a crisis in the process. - Should exchange with the North be suspend² ed if we confirm that they possess nuclear weapons?


¹ : 한미관계를 확약한 뒤 북한과의 관계가 나빠진 것 아닌가 ² : 중단하다


6. 이란 문제 인터뷰
'There is no other way' Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, A leading Iranian newspaper editor and confidant of Iranian President, [Newsweek Nov. 25, 2002 ]
- What do you think about Aghajari's death sentense? (Aghajari was reformsit activist and university professor). (Whenever conservatives are in a weak position,they do something like this to compensate for their deficiencies. This time it backfired.) - Are the conservatives that¹ organized to be able to conspire and plan such action? - Who would make the decision? - How do you explain the current situation in Iran? - Many people seem to be tired of the broken promises of reformists. Are reforms really possible in lran?


¹ : 부사 adv. 여기서는 --할 만큼 조직돼 있느냐


7. 미국이 이기고 있는지를 어떻게 알 수 있나
How to know if the U.S. is winning? [ IHT Mar 27, 2003 ]
A scorecard for the war, By Thomas L. Friedman - How will we know if we America is winning in Iraq? Here are six things I am watching for. - Have U.S. forces occupied Baghdad-without leveling the whole city? - Have U.S forced killed,captured or expelled Saddam? - Has America been able to explain why some Iraqi forces are putting up such a fierce fight? Are these the most elite,pampered Special Republican Guard units, who have benefited most from the Saddam's rule and are therefore willing to fight to preserve it? - Or are these primarily Sunni Muslim units,terrified that¹ with the fall of Saddam the long reign of the Sunnis of Iraq will end and they will be replaced by the Shiite majority? Or is this happening because even Iraqis who detest Saddam love their homeland and hate the idea of a U.S. occupation? - Has American won this war and preserved the territorial integrity of Iraq? - Has an authentic Iraqi liberal nationalist emerged from the U.S. occupation to lead the country? - Is the Iraqi state that emerges from this war accepted as legitimate by Iraq's Arab and Muslim neighbors?


¹ : terrified된 이유를 이끈는 절을 이끄는 관계사, terrified that,


8. 에드워드 케네디 상원의원 인터뷰
Sen. Edward Kennedy, June 18.2002. Metro.
- What steps need to be taken to ensure health care coverage among all Americans? - How do you think the budget problems in Massachusetts and throughout the country will affect health care? - What are your views on cloning?

9. 2000 미국대선 후보 토론¹
The Presidential Debate
Announcer : Live, from the Clark Athletic Center at the University of Massachusetts, the first Presidential Debate. Here is moderator, Jim Lehrer. Jim Lehrer : Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Welcome to this, the first of three debates between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore. Now, let's meet the candidates. [ Gore and Bush step out, shake hands, then stand behind their respective podiums ] ---let's begin the debate. Mr. Vice-President, during this campaign, you have frequently called the Bush tax plan a "risky scheme". Why? Al Gore : [ speaking slowly and in broken syllables ] Well, Jim.. Governor Bush and I have two very different plans to offer tax relief to American families. In his plan, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would receive nearly fifty percent of the benefits. My plan, Jim, is diff-er-ent. Rather than squand-er the su-plus on a risky tax cut for the wealthy, I would put it in what I call a. "lock-box." Jim Lehrer : Governor Bush, your response? George W. Bush : I don't know what that was all about.. but I'll tell you this: "Don't Mess With Texas!" Jim Lehrer : Governor Bush, I listened very carefully to the Vice-President's remarks, and I honestly do not believe he messed with Texas. Now, Governor Bush.. Jim Lehrer : Governor Bush, the next question is for you. Two weeks ago, at a meeting of the Economic Club in Detroit, you said the following: "More seldom than not, the movies gives us exquisite sex and wholesome violence, that underscores our values. Every two child did. I will." What did you mean by that? George W. Bush : [ clears throat ] Pass. Jim Lehrer : Perhaps if you could see it on a monitor? George W. Bush : [ reads monitor ] Pass. Jim Lehrer : Really? No idea what that could mean? George W. Bush : Could be.. education? Jim Lehrer : Governor Bush, this question is for you, and it concerns² foreign policy. Last week, in Serbian elections we saw the apparent defeat of President Slobodan Milosevic by challenger Vojislav Kostunica. Yet, Milosevic refused to step aside. As President, would you apply pressure on Milosevic, and openly aid Kostunica and his Novia Serbskaya party? Or, by working with neighbors, such as Karadon Ragonovic of Croatia, Istivan Kajnoinsy of Hungary, or Anton Paslagaros of Greece? Jim Lehrer : Vice-President Gore? Jim Lehrer : Which beings us to our final question. Governor Bush, both you and the Vice-President have offered plans to provide prescription drugs for the elderly. What makes your plan superior? Jim Lehrer : Mr. Vice-President, we are short of time.. Jim Lehrer : Governor Bush? Response? Jim Lehrer : Well, that brings us to the close of tonight's debate. Each candidate will now give a brief closing statement. Jim Lehrer : I'm afraid not³ . In fact, we are almost out of time, so I will instead ask each candidate to sum up, in a single word, the best argument for his candidacy. Governor Bush? Jim Lehrer : This concludes the first debate. Thank you, and "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night!"


¹ : 토론 전문이 아님. 미국 대통령후보 토론회의 분위기를 엿보기 위해 양 후보자의 답변 첫부분을 남겨두었으나 Jim Lehrer의 질문만 모두 실었음. ² : 걱정을 끼치다,신경쓰게 하다. It concern me=I am concerned by it.(or with it) ³ : 완곡한 거절표현. 토론회에서 고어 부통령이 시간을 더가질 수 있느냐는질문에 대한 응답임.


10. 럼스펠드 국방장관 인터뷰
NBC,Meet the press, Rumsfeld interview, 3.23/03
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you the scene in Baghdad moments ago. These are Iraqi citizens along the banks of the river. They are saying, they are looking for two people who have parachuted into Baghdad because their plane has been shot down. What can you tell us? Are there any allied planes missing? So, in fact, there may be two parachutes that have been ejected from that plane? Do you believe there are any American prisoners of war? There's also reports that a Patriot missile, unfortunately, inadvertently struck a British aircraft. Could you confirm that? There were interviews with many of the American soldiers there, who said that they were meeting stiff resistance. Are you surprised by the level of resistance we are getting from the Iraqis? In 1991 in southern Iraq, in cities like Basra, there were insurrections against Saddam Hussein. Shouldn't those towns be much more supportive, appreciative of the United States military coming, rather than offering resistance?: There were some who were supportive of going to war with Iraq who described it as a cakewalk SEC'Y RUMSFELD: We never, I never did. No one I know... MR. RUSSERT: You did not? SEC'Y RUMSFELD: No one I know in the Pentagon ever did. MR. RUSSERT: It is far from it¹. SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Oh, my goodness, it's just --a war is a war. It's a brutal thing One real tragedy, last night in Kuwait, Camp Pennsylvania, where the 101st Airborne is stationed, a U.S. soldier allegedly² rolled a grenade into the tent of his commander. Here are some pictures of what happened. Wounded soldiers will be carried out. And then this soldier is taken into custody, and being questioned for what occurred, as he is being led off by his colleagues and comrades. What can you tell us about that? Has there been any judgment, determination made about the motive of that soldier: Is there any sense of betrayal by his fellow soldiers, and are you concerned about the morale in that unit? The Iraqis are saying that these pictures were taken yesterday, more released today. What can you tell us about Saddam Hussein? : If you knew Saddam Hussein was dead, is it something that you would make public³ or try to prevent from being made public in order to make sure Iraq did not break down in disarray? : Is Saddam Hussein directing the Iraqi military at this time? : Are you somewhat surprised by the level and intensity of defiance being shown by the Iraqi vice president and other senior Iraqi officials? : Let me show you the Iraqi foreign minister. This is a picture from Damascus, Syria. This is Naji Sabri. He left Iraq, went to Damascus, Syria, and he's on his way to Cairo, Egypt, for an Arab ministers' meeting. How could the foreign minister of Iraq get out of that country in the middle of a war? : So Saddam could have gotten out?⁴ "Regime change: How will we know when it happens? At what point will the United States be able to declare the regime has changed? When President Hussein is captured or dead? When his elite 25,000-man Special Republican Guard surrenders? Or, when the top 2,000 members of the ruling Ba'ath Party have been purged from government?" How would you answer that? : Our troops are making a fast run to Baghdad. When do you think they'll be there by? What happens when our troops get to Baghdad? How concerned are you about ⁵ a prolonged urban warfare? You mentioned flexibility, and I want to talk about that in just a second. But there was a question asked of you at your news conference on Friday, and here it is. "Could I ask, sir, are there talks going on between this building" ? the Pentagon ? "and the Iraqi senior military leadership?" : General Franks yesterday said there is on-going dialogue with a number of senior Iraqi officials, people in and out of uniform. Both your statement and his statement could be true. : What kind of discussion is going on with senior Iraqi officials? And who is it with⁶ ? Third parties? Third countries? Who? : Why have we left Iraqi TV on so that briefings like this from the defense minister or the information minister or the vice president can go out on the airwaves, as you said, with their propaganda? Why not take down their TV? : Has anything gone wrong so far?⁷ : Thus far, we have not found any biological or chemical weapons, is that accurate? : Do you also believe we will find files which indicate broad terrorist ties with Saddam Hussein and other organizations throughout the world? : Do you believe that Saddam Hussein will use chemical and biological weapons against our troops as they approach Baghdad? : The Turkish prime minister told The Washington Post today that he has an agreement with the United States to put Turkish troops in northern Iraq to work with the American troops. Is that accurate? You have felt for some time that it was going to be necessary to use military force against Saddam Hussein, haven't you? . It was reported by the Associated Press and by CBS. : But have you felt for some time that military action against Saddam was necessary? : Yesterday in New York City, some 200,000 Americans took to the streets and protested ? What would you say to those protesters? : You are one of the few Americans to have ever met Saddam Hussein. This is back in December of 1983. You were a special envoy from President Reagan to talk with him about resuming diplomatic relations⁸ in some form. You said at that time Saddam made it clear Iraq was not interested in making mischief. Now, looking at that 20 years later, what conclusion do you come to? : What were your impressions⁹ when you met him face to face? Do you think he will ever surrender? : Before we go, what would you like to say to the American people today about this war? What should they expect? What should they be thinking when they're watching it and observing it? How long will it go on? MR. RUSSERT: Have you seen any Turkish troops in northern Iraq yet, Fred? MR. FRANCIS: No, Tim, I haven't, but I'll tell you, What is the most important thing that you think you shared with readers in Time in this article? Is it possible to break that spirit and is it possible to truly break the regime of Saddam Hussein psychologically by this show of force?


¹ : 그런 일은 절대로 없다 ² : 알려지기로는 ³ : 공개하다 ⁴ : 빠져나갈 수 있었을까 ⁵ : 얼마나 걱정되나 ⁶ : 누구하고 논의하나 ⁷ : 지금까지 뭐가 잘못됐는가 ⁸ : 외교관계를 회복하다 ⁹ : 어떤 인상을 받았나


11. 딕 체니 부통령 인터뷰
Dick Cheney ,NBC,Meet the Press [ 3/16/2003 ]
MR. RUSSERT: How close are we to war? : What could Saddam Hussein do to stop war? : So bottom line¹ , he would have to disarm completely and leave the country? : Why is it acceptable for the United States to lead a military attack against a nation that has not attacked the United States? What's your answer? : French President Jacques Chirac said this morning that perhaps there could be a deadline of 30 days or 60 days and he may be able to buy into that. What would be wrong for the United States to say to the world, "OK. We're going to give Saddam 30 days or 60 days and put some pressure on the French to step up and have a united front against Saddam Hussein"? : Is it because of² their financial dealings? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can't say that. I don't know. Excuse me. I know, for example, in '95, when there was an effort to pass a resolution, the Security Council finding him in material breach, France opposed it. In '96, when there was an effort to pass a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein for his slaughter of the Kurds, France opposed it. In '97, when there was an effort to block travel by his intelligence and military officials, France opposed it. In '98, France announced he was free of all weapons of mass destruction. And in '99, of course, they opposed the creation UNMOVIC, the existing inspection regime, that they now want to place their total faith in with respect to³ trying to disarm Saddam Hussein. Given⁴ that pattern of behavior, it's difficult for us to believe that 30 days or 60 more days are going to change anything. MR. RUSSERT: That's a non-starter⁵ ? What do you think is the most important rationale⁶ for going to war with Iraq? : And even though⁷ the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree? : If we do in fact go into Iraq, would a military operation be successful without the apprehension or death of Saddam Hussein? : If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties? : And you are convinced⁸ the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy? : Are we going to demand a second vote in the United Nations to show their cards? Every other⁹ German says that in the poll. Forty-five percent of Brits say that President Bush is a higher risk to world peace than Saddam Hussein. How did we get to this point? And is the competence of the foreign policy of the Bush administration being seriously questioned? : Do you believe Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against U.S. troops? : How will you respond? : If he did a widespread chemical attack, would we consider responding with nuclear? : North Korea, an imminent threat¹⁰ ; they have a nuclear bomb, perhaps on line to build six more by June. Why not have a pre-emptive military strike against North Korea or at least sit down with them, one-on-one¹¹ , and try to resolve that crisis? MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion¹² it's terrorism? VICE PRES. CHENEY: There's none to date¹³ . MR. RUSSERT: How's your health? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Good. No complaints. MR. RUSSERT: How's your diet? VICE PRES. CHENEY: My diet is good. I'm watched over very carefully by my wife and by doctors and I've got... MR. RUSSERT: Do you prefer french fries or freedom fries?¹⁴ : In order to pay for this war, would the president consider suspending his proposed tax cut?


¹ : 요컨대, the most important thing in the end ² : because of 명사, ³ : 와 관련해 ⁴ : given+명사, given that+절:--라는 점을 감안하면 ⁵ : a person, idea, or plan that has no chance of success, 성공할 가능성이 전혀 없는 일 ⁶ : 가장 중요한 명분은 무엇이냐 ⁷ : even though(if);비록 -일지라도 ⁸ : 확신하다. (cf)be worried that, be concerned that-을 우려하다 ⁹ : 한 사람 건너 한 사람씩, ¹⁰ : 임박한 위협 ¹¹ : 1대1 회담,ex) one-on-one interview ¹² : a slight possibility, 약간의 가능성 ¹³ : 지금까지 to date: up to now ¹⁴ : 프렌치 프라이를 좋아하느냐,아니면 프리덤 프라이를 좋아하느냐, 프리덤 프라이는 이라크 문제로 미국이 프랑스와 긴장관계에 있을 때 미국 공화당 보수파들은 감자튀김요리인 프렌치 프라이의 이름에서 프렌치(french프랑스의)말조차 거슬린다며 french라 는 말을 바꾸었다.


12. 콜린파월 국무장관 인터뷰
Collin Powell, NBC, Meet the Press, [ 9 Mar.2003 ]
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Are these the final days before war with Iraq? With us: the nation's top diplomat, the secretary of state, Colin Powell. And joining us now is the secretary of state. This Tuesday or Wednesday, the United States and Great Britain will move a resolution before the United Nations which will set March 17 as a firm deadline for Saddam Hussein to cooperate fully on disarmament. Do we have the nine votes in the Security Council to pass that resolution? : France has already said that even if it passes, they will veto. And what about¹ the Chinese and the Russians? : Has President Putin of Russia told President Bush that he would not veto it? : Mr. Secretary, if the resolution does not pass, or if you do get the nine or 10 votes but the French veto it, will the deadline of March 17 still hold for Saddam Hussein? : But in terms of² world opinion, how was it³ that we have lost a battle of public relations to a tyrant like Saddam Hussein? If he's such a threat to his neighborhood, why are those countries so silent? : But if we commence military action, that operation would not be successful unless⁴ Saddam is killed or captured? : Many people across the country still step back and say, Mr. Secretary, "Why would we invade a country that has not yet attacked us?" What's the answer? : Are we prepared for all the risk and ramifications, the insurrection in the Arab streets, the potential difficulties in Pakistan, the environmental hazards, the refugees, and on and on and on, when we open that bottle? Then: Why has this man made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign for the democratic presidential nomination? We'll ask him. Our guest: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.


¹ : 에 대한 새로운 얘기나 생각이 있느냐, What news and plans do you have concerning- ² : 국제적인 여론으로 말하자면 ³ : 우리가 후세인에게 여론전에서는 지고 있는 것은 어떻게 된 일인가 ⁴ : if not


13. 미국 민주당 대선주자 하워드 딘과의 인터뷰
FORMER GOV. HOWARD DEAN, (D-VT ),NBC.Meet the press
Mr. Russel; Why has this man made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign for the emocratic presidential nomination? We'll ask him. Our guest: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. : What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting¹ the president's unilateral attack on Iraq. : In the clip we used of your speech, you talked about the president using a unilateral attack against Iraq. In fact, that's inaccurate, isn't it? It would not be unilateral. There are now more than 20 countries signed up with the U.S. : How are you so certain that he doesn't have a nuclear program? : That is devastating evidence. With that kind of arsenal, why would you want Saddam Hussein to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction? : But if the president has concluded and reached a different judgment that the mustard gas, the VX, the sarin, the anthrax is a threat to the United States, is he not constitutionally bound to do something about it? : And how long would President Dean leave the 250,000 troops there? : You would negotiate unilaterally, bilaterally with the North Koreans? : That sounds like a litmus test² .


¹ : Democratic, Vermont의 약자. 버몬트주 전 주지사.민주당 ² : 리트머스 시험지인 것처럼 들린다


14. 올포위츠 미국방 부장관 인터뷰
Wolfowitz, NBC Meet the Press, Apr.6 2003
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Wolfowitz, what is the status, the state of¹ Operation Iraqi Freedom? DR. WOLFOWITZ: Well, we're just barely past the two-week mark. It's worth remembering that. We're in the middle of a difficult war but we've made a lot of progress. : What might be the big dangers that lie ahead? : Do we have any evidence yet of chemical or biological weapons on the ground? : And you have no doubt we'll find them in substantial numbers. : General Pace, what's left of² the Iraqi regime's military assets? : How dangerous is that to us? Are they still a fighting force? Or are they more of a police force? : Can we go in and out of Baghdad at will³ ? : Mr. Wolfowitz, you saw photos, a video of Saddam Hussein on a walking tour. What's your reaction to that? : Are you confident that was Saddam himself? : Do you believe that the coalition forces will be able to program their own radio and TV programs to the Iraqi people in the near future? : Secretary Rumsfeld spoke early on about negotiations, discussions we were having with high-level Iraqi officials. Are those ongoing? : What is the state of our intelligence gathering in Iraq right now? : In terms of intelligence, the Los Angeles Times had an article yesterday, which I want to show you and our viewers, and give you a chance to talk about it: : How imperative is it that we kill or capture Saddam Hussein so that Iraqis know it is safe to come forward and support an alternative government? : But as long as Saddam is unaccounted for, won't there be a lingering fear amongst the Iraqi people that he may come back? : Could we set up an alternative government even though he hasn't been killed or captured? : When will we know when the regime is gone? : In your professional judgment⁴ , do you think it will come to buckle fighting, mano a mano, in the streets of Baghdad? : But why is it that we had 600,000 troops for Persian Gulf War to remove Saddam from Kuwait, when we only have 300,000 to take over all of Iraq? Why did that happen? Is that accurate? Who will oversee postwar reconstruction, the State Department or Defense Department? Are you concerned that we may be creating something we may regret? : Are you concerned that unless we have a significantly large American presence in Iraq, we could be creating another Afghanistan, which would be a haven for terrorists to come to Iraq rather than Afghanistan to kill Americans? : Are you comfortable with the military being used for nation building or nation rebuilding? : You concur with that?⁵ : Is Mr. Woolsey being considered for a position in Iraq? What should the American people be prepared for vis-a-vis⁶ Iran, North Korea, Syria? Will we allow North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapons? (DR. WOLFOWITZ: Well, unfortunately, we think that North Korea probably already has some. But it is clear that that possession of those weapons by countries that support terrorism is a danger to the United States, and a danger to the world. And it's a danger that has to be addressed⁷ . I think in each case you address it differently. The circumstances in North Korea are very, very different from the circumstances in Iraq. And even Iran, which is a next-door neighbor, the circumstances are different. The problem has similar dimensions, but I think the strategy for dealing with each one has to be tailored to⁸ each individual's case. How about Syria, who is sending night goggles to the Iraqi fighters? How do you respond to those comments by your fellow military men?


¹ : -는 어떤 상태인가. 상황인가 ³ : 마음대로 ⁴ : 당신의 전문적인 식견으로 보건대 ⁵ : 동의하느냐 ⁶ : (부사)마주 향하여,맞보고(to, with), (전치사)와 마주보고, 에 면해서,--에 관하여,--와 비교하여, (형용사) 서로 마주보고 있는, ⁷ : 해결돼야 하는 address, 해결하다 ⁸ : 맞추다


15. 한미 관계 포럼 Q&A
US Bomber alert a "deterrent" against N Korea Washington File provided by US Embassy, Seoul [ 07 Feb, 2003 ]
Q & A at a forum on U.S-Korea relations sponsored by the Washington Post - Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, putting a total fo 24 B-52 and B-1 bombers on alert for possible deployment to Guam certainly sounds ominous¹ . How concerned should we be?² - Is there a red line that North Korea must not cross in your view on its road to developing a nuclear capability, a line that might prompt³ or crossing it might prompt, economic sanctions or perhaps even military action? - I want to turn back briefly to Secretaries Wolfowits and Kelly. On the other hand, we hear talk of the need for substantial incentives to get North Korea to cooperate on the nuclear issue, at a time when just yesterday the North Korea regime seemed to be asserting to the right of-its right to make a preemptive strike in the face of the threat from the U.S. How do we keep both of those ideas in the air at the same time? How do you respond to those two sides of the issue? - Secretary Wolfowits, I know you have to leave⁴ , but we've moved the rhetoric from "we're not going to talk" to "we are going to talk" to "we are going to negotiate." That seems like progress, but where is that heading? Is it-are we in a position to negotiate with North Korea now?


¹ : sound -하게 들린다. Cf) look -하게 보인다 ² : 우리가 어느 정도 심각하게 생각해야 하느냐 ³ : 부추기다.격려하다(inspire) ⁴ : 가다.떠나다. 자리를 뜨다. 취재원이 바삐 가야하는데 꼭 물어봐야 할 질문이 더 있을 때필요한 표현. 막상 부닥치면 쉽게 떠오르지 않는다. *강금실 법무장관은 지난 봄 국제투명성대회장에서 에반스 美 상무장관이 공항으로 가기 위해 자리를 뜨려고 하자 "Do you start?"라고 인사했다고 한다. 그러자 에반스 장관이 Yes, I am leaving.이라고 응답하더라며 자신의 영어 실수 에피소드를 솔직하게 들려준 적이 있다.


16. 전 텍사스 주지사 출신의 정치전략컨설턴트와의 인터뷰
Interview with Ann Richards, former Texas Governor [ CNN, Larry King Live, Dec 16.2002.]
- What do you make of this whole thing?¹ - It is a strange history though, because the party(Republic) is the party of Lincoln. - Had it had the most moderate liberal…² - It doesn't shock you - you mean³ left as majority leader. - Why did the apology not work?⁴ - You agree with that? - Don't you think⁵ he's materially changed over the years or not? - Were you surprised? - You think he'll leave the Senate? - Why didn't he show that in the campaign? - Now what was more public than "Saturday Night Live"? - I think it's doubtful. - Why doesn't the crowd like him? - Will Gore have a role in the campaign? - What do you think of your potential nominees? - OK. Let's discuss some of the others. What do you think of John Kerry? - Best equipped in the area of international relationships and war and peace. - So your favorite⁶ at this point is who? - Wouldn't he affect the picture if he got in?⁷ - Are you questioning whether we know it? - Do you think they're going to have to do it? - Is there still draft registration⁸ ? - What about⁹ the war on terrorism and Osama bin Laden? Where are they? - What do you make of¹⁰ the leaving of the top economic team? - Why hasn't this president's popularity waned¹¹ ? - Is that because he's very popular and he acted nobly and boldly after 9/11? - Was it economic-was it Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey's fault ¹²? - And what does this equal, the fact that the public has more awareness¹³ means? - It means that companies have got to be more mindful of¹⁴ the public impact on their… - As well as you knew him, you would have trusted him?¹⁵ - Can other Enrons happen? - I gather¹⁶ you're against¹⁷ further tax cuts? - How do you measure it?¹⁸ - What do you make of the selection of Nancy Pelosi to be minority leader in the House? - Are you hopeful?( Yes, I suppose so) - Anything to the allegations that¹⁹ charity money from the Saudi princess to the hands of the hijackers? - When are we going to see a female president? - You won't take a drink?


¹ : What do you make of= what do you think about ² : 공화당은 과거에 가장 온건한 리버럴을 가졌었던 셈인데-- ³ : 너가 말하는 뜻은-- ⁴ : 왜 그 사과가 통하지 않았나 ⁵ : -- 하게 생각하는 것 아니냐 ⁶ : 좋아하는 사람,( 물건) ⁷ : 그가 나서면 그림이 좀 달라지지 않을까 ⁸ : 모병 ⁹ : what news and opinions do you have concerning-에 대해 어떻게 보나, ¹⁰ : think of -을 (어떻게) 생각하다 ¹¹ : 왜 대통령의 인기는 사그러들지 않는가 ¹² : 잘못, 실수 ¹³ : 대중들은 더 잘 알고 있다는 (사실) ¹⁴ : mindful of-에 주의하는, 명심하는 ¹⁵ : 당신이 그를 잘 알았다면 당신이라면 그를 믿었을텐데(가정법)? ¹⁶ : Gather=Understand, believe ¹⁷ : be against= 반대하다. ¹⁸ : Measure= judge ;어떻게 판단합니까 ¹⁹ : -라는 주장에 대해 한 말씀해달라


17. 북핵 문제 토론회
Harvard Univ. Kennedy school of Government, Institute of Politics, Apr. 2002. Forum Moderated by Dean J. Nye - Let's start with immediate questions. How grave¹ is the crisis? Is there a prospect of² a crisis within the next year? - NK is supposed to³ have a 1 million soldiers near DMZ, any chance of an attack? - The question is not whether there will be a crisis, but what will cause it⁴ - Now US Congress is concerned whether⁵ to fund provision of oil to NK. I think this could be a problem…. - I want to go back sunshine policy question. - I wonder⁶ where we are going in the long run. In the mid 90's there were a lot of mistaken estimates that if a country is starving, GNP declining, isolated, that it's impossible for this to last⁷ . So some people said we should isolate NK because they are on the brink of collapse⁸ . Well it turns out⁹ that that regime has proved resilient. I think the question is if we look ahead now, how much longer can Kim Jong-il last? Is there any consensus between Seoul and Washington about how Kim can last? What's your guess? - How much longer, 10 more years?


¹ : 얼마나 중대하냐? ² : --의 전망이 있느냐 ³ : --한 것으로 짐작된다 ⁴ : 문제는 -하느냐 하는 문제가 아니라 -무엇이 -하느냐 하는 것이다. ⁵ : -하느냐 마느냐 하는 문제로 고심하고 있다 ⁶ : wonder if---한 지 의문이다,,wonder when,where,what-언제,어디서(어디로),무엇을-하는지 궁금하다, (cf. I am curious about- 가 궁금하다) ⁷ : 버티다.존속하다 ⁸ : 붕괴의 언저리(가까이)에 있다. ⁹ : 밝혀지다.


18. 앨 고어 전부통령 인터뷰
Transcript Of Gore's 60 Minutes Interview CBS.Dec. 15, 2002
(CBS) LESLEY STAHL: You know, you've been all over television, all over the newspapers for this last week. You've given back-to-back interviews. You've answered virtually every question except one (laughs) and that is, are you or are you not gonna run in 2004?¹ Are you gonna run? You've decided not to run? Well, I think a lot of people are just gonna be bowled over. You're not a candidate. You've been looking like a candidate. Tell us how you have arrived at what I think is gonna be a stunningly (laughs) surprising decision? The ambition to be the commander in chief, the ambition to sit in the Oval Office, that's gone² ? You say you had the ambition. You still have it even you said. Still have the dream? You think you could beat³ the President? I'm still trying to understand why you're not gonna run. A democratic, you believe, could beat President Bush. (AL GORE:I absolutely believe that. Think about what happened in 1991.when-- the first president Bush was just as high-- well, higher in the public opinion poll-- ) But not sustained like this. Now you have democrats already out there. You have Kerry (PH) and Gephart (PH) and-- So which of the democrats do you think has the best shot?⁴ So you do you have a feeling of⁵ what it will take, what a democrat has to look like⁶ , what he has to stand for, to beat President Bush?⁷ And why, you think the economy is just gonna continue to spiral downward⁸ ? Is that what you're saying? Ran for President twice.?⁹ You were in the Senate for two terms. Vice President of the United States for 8 years. And this is it. But are you surprised in a way that-- that yourself-- -- that you're doing this? Now I've heard you say a couple of times, 'this time.' You said, 'I'm not gonna be a candidate this time.' What about 2008? So you're gonna grow your beard back?


¹ : 2004년 선거에 출마할 생각인가 아니면 출마하지 않을 계획인가 ² : 그런 것은 끝났나. ³ : 이기다.누르다 ⁴ : 당신 생각에는 누가 가장 좋은 민주당 후보냐? ⁵ : --라는 느낌을 갖다 ⁶ : 민주당 후보는 어때야 하는가, what sb(sth) look like? (누가, 무엇이) 어떻게 보이느냐 ⁷ : look like:--하게 보이다, stand for:--을 대표하다,--을 뜻하다: 부시대통령을 이기기 위해 민주당 후보는 어때야 하는지, 어떤 기치를 내 걸야야 하는지 ⁸ : 하향 악순환 ⁹ : 대통령 선거에 두번 나섰나?


19. 북한 핵문제 문답
NPR. All things considered,Jan. 14, 2003
-- Last week, All Things Considered opened its phone lines to solicit questions on North Korea and its enigmatic leader, Kim Jong Il, and about the current standoff over disclosures about North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

There was a 1994 agreement where the United States agreed to build two nuclear reactors if North Korea halted its nuclear weapons program. Why were those reactors never completed? What certainty do we have that¹ North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is in control of the country? Who's really calling the shots in North Korea?² Are the North Korean people favorable to³ the North Korean regime? Is there a chance of a mass movement to force the leadership out⁴ -- and if not, why is this so? What is the capability of North Korea's military to attack South Korea and hold captured territory? Is there any relationship between North Korea's defiance of nuclear weapons regulations and the U.S. war on terrorism -- in other words⁵ , is North Korea taking advantage of⁶ America's perceived weakened state and its focus on Iraq? What does North Korea hope to gain with their nuclear weapons program? Also, how can the United States justify its global non-proliferation stance, when it has its own deadly nuclear weapons arsenal?


¹ : 에 대해 어느 정도 확신하고 있나 ² : who is calling the shots in NK=who is in charge of NK =북한의 최고책임자 ³ : 찬성하는가, 동조하는가, ⁴ : 현집권층을 몰아낼 대중운동의 가능성 ⁵ : 다른 말로 하자면 ⁶ : 이용하다


20. 백악관 플레이셔 대변인 브리핑
White House briefing ¹
[MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon -- or good morning. Thank you, that's right. It's not our usual practice here to have these early briefings. Because of the President's meeting with the President of Poland, and then the lunch, I wanted to move it all up today. So what I'd like to do is give you a combination gaggle/briefing, so I'll get into in some length on the President's schedule today. A couple personnel announcements I typically do in the gaggle, and then we'll take your questions, as usual. The President began this morning with his intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. He will meet shortly with the President of Poland in the Oval Office, to be followed by a lunch with the President of Poland. I anticipate that the topic of conversation will include the strength and the importance of the warm bilateral relationships that we share with Poland. I think there will be some discussion of trade, NATO expansion, as well as discussions of the ongoing efforts in the war against terror. ----- MR. FLEISCHER: The gaggle is now over. This now can be an on-camera briefing. Ari, what can you tell us about the diplomatic efforts going on with North Korea? The Russians and the Chinese, apparently, envoys are going to be acting in some fashion as an intermediary here Are we asking them to pass on any specific messages or offers? Is it a step toward a solution? Any reaction to Blix's comments that² he regards the January 27th report as simply another interim report, and that it will take him well into March to finish the inspections or to proceed to a point where he can make a so-called comprehensive report? Does this delay the timetable? So that means that you'll wait until the inspectors have finished their work? Well, what do you mean by "time is running out"?³ How long can you let 200,000 U.S. troops sit in the sand? Why do you go so far out of your way to say that the burden is not on the inspectors? I mean⁴ , does the President think that the inspectors are doing any good? Does he care⁵ what they say or what they conclude? Or does he simply believe either Saddam Hussein puts up or shuts up and the U.S. gets ready to go to war? Well, then, what is the United States doing specifically to help the do a good job? What's the evidence of that good job that they're doing, and what specifically is Saddam Hussein holding out on? What help are giving, if we know about all this? But Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei are the experts. They're the -- that's why they're there. They're the experts. They say they need months to get that proof positive, to get the answer to the question. Why does the President think he knows better? But the inspectors aren't saying they're being fooled, they're being duped. Does the President think that he knows better than they do as to⁶ how effective their work can be? It's not up to⁷ the inspectors to judge how effective their own work is and can be; it's up to the President to say if their work is over - But it seems like⁸ you've already decided Everything you say makes it suggest that you've already decided that the answer is that they haven't cooperated. No matter what⁹ the inspectors say? If the North Koreans agreed to talk about rolling back their nuclear program, will the agreed framework still be on the table, including the completion of two nuclear reactors that the United States, Japan and South Korea promised to build? So you haven't already decided to scrap the 1994 agreed framework and negotiate another agreement? Has the President now decided to file an brief¹⁰ in the Michigan affirmative action case? Has he instructed¹¹ the Justice Department to draft a brief that he is considering? Has he asked them to draft one if he's considering whether to file? Ari, yesterday Assistant Secretary of State Kelly said that if North Korea agrees to set aside its nuclear program in a verifiable way, there would be opportunities to discuss energy aid. Secretary Powell is quoted in that interview you just referred to¹² as saying that¹³ it is possible down the road to discuss not a formal treaty probably, but some sort of language on a nonaggression agreement between the United States and North Korea. Is it not fair to describe these public comments by senior diplomats of the United States government as inducements to try to get North Korea to the table? But there's public discussion of those possibilities now, in days after senior administration officials say there will be no incentives, no concessions, no quid pro quo¹⁴ . Is there not some inconsistency there?¹⁵ Well, then, would it be fair to say¹⁶ there is little or no price to pay for North Korea for breaking its word, if, after a period of standoff and confrontation, if it says, oh, never mind, we can go back to the way things were the day before? They don't seem to¹⁷ care about that. What's your understanding of what the Chinese and the Russians are offering in terms of mediating the dispute with North Korea? And do the talks replace the U.S. offer for technical talks at the United Nations? It's my understanding that what the Chinese are offering is to mediate talks between Washington and Pyongyang. Is that not the case?¹⁸ One on Iraq and one on welfare reform.¹⁹ On Iraq, you say today that time is running out. But many of our allies are saying that the inspectors need more time. How is the White House going to manage that disconnect of expectations by the rest of the world? But I think that some of our allies would consider into mid-March if that's what the inspectors feel they need some time, that that would not be stringing along the world forever²⁰ . On welfare reform -- the fact sheets and program he'll unveil²¹ today or talk about today, is it the same one that he did last summer? Or is there news in it? So he's not going to deviate from the guidelines and priorities he outlined ²²? Ari, the last couple of weeks, there have been many issues of race that's hit the desk of the President. And in the midst of all of these controversies, many Americans still want to know what the President's philosophy is as it relates to civil rights²³ . Will his decision for Thursday reflect what you're saying? Ari, just to clarify²⁴ , there's been at least one report that I've seen that says the President has made a decision. You're clearly saying that's not true, he has not made a decision regarding²⁵ admissions - Also to follow on²⁶ something you said earlier, you said yesterday the President focused on this. Who is he working with on this matter? Before going into any war, does the President feel, as a matter of policy, that it's his obligation to tell the American people how many casualties that they should expect? Shouldn't there be some type of discussion of that, though? Given that ²⁷ we've heard a lot about the risks of not acting, shouldn't there be some discussion of the risks of war, as well²⁸ ? Ari, is the President disappointed with his former Treasury Secretary's public comments that he wouldn't have done²⁹ the dividend tax cut? And secondly, does that make it more difficult for him to sell the tax cut, because we knew that it wasn't a secret that there was a difference of opinion? And, on an unrelated matter³⁰ , what does the President think about the major news organizations' decision to go to market-oriented policies for election result predictions? Does it make it more difficult to sell it in the closely divided³¹ Senate? Is the President considering any kind of a speech on affirmative action³² ? Yesterday you talked about what an important issue it is in this case, it's risen to his attention, and has the impact to -- has the potential to impact a lot of Americans, black and white. Is it something that's important enough for him to -- aside from any legal brief -- to speak out on to the American people? The comparison I keep going back to is stem cell debate. A lot of people thought that no matter what he said he would offend half the population.³³ They're saying the same thing about this. He seemed to portray the issue of stem cell research in a way that satisfied more than half the population. Is there a way to do that with affirmative action? Or is it such a polarizing issue that you're going to automatically -- Ari, the framework agreement required that the plutonium facility at Yongbyon be frozen. But I think what you were saying today with the emphasis on dismantling is that the position has hardened, that now that facility must actually be destroyed. Is that correct? So it must be dismantled? Irreversible?³⁴ And, Ari, does the same apply to the uranium enrichment centrifuge -- the same? But in both cases, dismantlement is the standard? You mentioned that the President, should³⁵ he decide that war is the only option, would speak at length to the American people. Given a rising tide in Europe of anti-war sentiment, would he also feel the need to go to Europe and talk directly to allies who potentially we might need in that kind of war? Ari, another question on the timing. How can there not be a timetable? How can time be running out if there's not a timetable? I don't get it. Right, but now you say that time is running out. There's no timetable, but time is running out… Speaking of dates, you say now that January 27th is an important date. Has it taken on some new meaning as a milepost in this whole situation? Can I just go back to the question of public opinion? Yesterday you mentioned that the administration was going to send out senior members of the Cabinet to talk to the American people about the tax cut package. Is there a similar plan on Iraq, in terms of reaching out to people to explain to them the case that the U.S. is making and -- Do you think these polls out today that show that the President's personal approval rating³⁶ has dropped into the 50s, and the disapproval - But all I wanted to know is, does this tell us anything about the way in which the White House is communicating, convincing the American people of the case against Iraq? Is this something that's of any concern to you? Could you try to explain again to the world why North Korea is less of a threat than Iraq to the United States. On economics, Ari, once the Congress acts on the President's tax cut proposals, what are the economic indicators to watch over time to judge whether they're working or not? If those indicators -- if the numbers were all up, that's a fair -- that's a fair sign that the proposals of the President were working. If they're down, is it a fair sign that they failed? Ari, let me ask you a question on dates.


¹ : 백악관 브리핑은 인터넷으로 매일 소개된다.www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefing .기자들의 질문을보면 주어 술어를 단순 도치시킨 의문문들이 쏟아지고 있다. ² : --라고 말한 블릭스의 말에 대해 (백악관은) 어떻게 생각하나 ³ : what do you mean by--:시간이 부족하다는 말은 무슨 뜻인가 ⁴ : 내 말은 무슨 뜻이냐 하면( 자신의 질문을 다시 정리할 때 쓰는 표현) ⁵ : -에 신경을 쓰다 ⁶ : --에 관하여 ⁷ : -의 몫이다. ⁸ : --한 것 같다. Seems like-는 seems as if-와 비슷한 뜻 ⁹ : 뭐라고 말하건 ¹⁰ : brief=document ¹¹ : instruct= 지시하다: 지시했느냐 ¹² : 언급하다 ¹³ : --라고 말한 것으로 ¹⁴ : (라틴어)하나주면 하나받는 방식의 교환. 1:1 교환 ¹⁵ : 좀 모순되는 측면이 없는가? ¹⁶ : --라고 말한다면 공평한 일인가 ¹⁷ : 그들은 그것에 관해 개의치 않는 것처럼 보인다. ¹⁸ : 그렇지 않은가? ¹⁹ : 하나는 이라크에 관한 것이고 하나는 복지개혁 문제에 관한 질문이다. ²⁰ : 세상을 영원히 속이지는 못할 것이다. String along (사람을)기다리게 하다. 속이다 ²¹ : 공개하다. Release, publish ²² : 가이드라인이나 우선적으로 해결해야할 문제들에서 벗어나지 않을 것이다 be going to=will ²³ : 시민의 권리와 관련된 문제이기 때문에 ²⁴ : 좀더 명확하게 하기 위해 (묻겠다) ²⁵ : -에 관한 ²⁶ : -을 미뤄보면 ²⁷ : -을 감안한다면 ²⁸ : 전쟁의 위험에 대한 논의 역시 있어야 하는 것 아니냐 ²⁹ : -을 하지 않았을 것이다. ³⁰ : 무관한 주제에 대한 질문인데 ³¹ : (두 당의) 의석수가 거의 비슷한 ³² : 미국교육기곤의 입학사정 정책. 학생구성의 다양성 등을 위해 인종 지역 계층별 배려를 한다. 2003년 봄 미시간 대학 로스쿨 탈락생이 소송을 내 대법원재판이 벌어졌다. ³³ : 뭐라고 말하든 절반의 사람들의 심기를 건드릴 것이다. ³⁴ : 돌이킬 수 없는가 ³⁵ : 가정법 ³⁶ : 개인 지지도


21. 플레이셔 대변인 일문일답 ¹
Here is an excerpt of Fleisher's encounter with reporters at the morning "gaggle'" a less formal meeting than the daily news briefing. - Ari, what was the cost difference between flying the Viking in and taking a helicopter? (The cost difference between a Viking per hour and Marine One per hour is $ 7 an hour. And given the fact that the Viking actually---) - Which direction² ?(Laughter) "The Viking is $7 an hour more expensive" - Are your saying this off the top of your head³ ? (I've been asked it once or twice before. Given the fact that⁴ it actually takes a Viking less time to travel than a helicopter. You can do the math.) - Ari, What was the cost per hour that you're citing on the Viking? "The cost of a Viking is $6,552 per hour-I'm sorry,that' the…(shuffling of paper) Marine One, the H-60, is $6,552 per hour. And the Viking is $6,559 per hour." - What about the cost of the landing? The Viking would appear to require more people on deck. "I don't think that having people on deck has any different cost. They're already on deck." - What's the cost of lazy circle? (The Washington Post reported that the ship made 'lazy circle' in the sea to avoid showing up at port too early


¹ : 지난 5월 이라크 전쟁을 마치고 귀환하던 항공모함 Abraham Lincoln호에 Viking S-3B라는 전투기를 타고 내리면서 '탑건'시늉을 했던 부시 대통령에 대한 언론의 비판이 끊이지 않을 시절 백악관 대변인과 기자들의 일문일답 ² : 어느 쪽이 더 비싼가 ³ : 즉흥적으로 별 깊은 생각없이 ⁴ : --이라고 한다면


22. 사담 후세인 인터뷰
This is an edited extract of Tony Benn's interview with Saddam Hussein, broadcast by Channel 4 News. Feb.7 2001, Guardian Benn: Mr President, does Iraq have any weapons of mass destruction? Saddam: This is an opportunity to reach the British people and the forces of peace in the world. There is only one truth and therefore I tell you Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever. Benn: Do you have links with al-Qaida? Saddam: If we had a relationship with Al-Qaida and we believed in that relationship we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it.--- Benn: In relation to¹ the inspectors, there appear to be difficulties. [Will] they be cleared up before Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei come back to Baghdad? Saddam: You are aware that every major event must encounter some difficulty. -- Benn: May I broaden the question out, Mr President, to the relations between Iraq and the UN, and the prospects for peace... I wonder whether² with all its weaknesses and all the difficulties³ , whether you see a way in which the UN can reach that objective for the benefit of humanity? Saddam: The point you raised can be found in the United Nations charter. -- Benn: There are people who believe this present conflict is about oil, and I wonder if you would say something about how you see the enormous oil reserves of Iraq being developed. Saddam: The authorities in the US are motivated by aggression that has been evident for more than a decade against the region. ---


¹ : -와 관련 ² : 할지 어떨지 의문이다 ³ : with all= in spite of 에도 불구하고


23. 윤영관 장관과 파월 장관 회담 결과 기자회견
Powell and Minister Yoon talk Washington Files provided by the Department of State Mar. 28. 2003. QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on your request to have a multilateral discussion involving North Korea? SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. We continue to believe that the proper way to handle the nuclear situation with North Korea is through multilateral dialogue. It is an issue that affects not just North Korea and the United States, but the other nations in the region. We are pressing ahead seeking a variety of channels and using a variety of channels to see if w cannot begin such discussions. : What is the formation of the multilateral talks and how would induce North Koreans into the talks? SECRETARY POWELL: We are still exploring a variety of options and avenues, and the one thing I can assure you is that we will be in the closest coordination and consultation with our South Korean friends as we go forward. But I have nothing to announce or to say at this time about any particular format or forum. : Mr. Secretary, have you spoken with Foreign Minister Ivanov about your concerns that Russian firms are selling military related items to Iraq? SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, I have, regularly. I spoke to Mr. Ivanov most recently, I think, two days ago, perhaps three, and as I think I have said before, I gave him additional information at that time, which he is using with his various ministries to look into the matter and to run it to ground. But I haven't spoken to him in the last two days. : Secretary Powell, your Korean counterpart this morning suggested it may be time for a bold initiative along the lines of the Nixon administration's initiative towards China. Did that come up in your meeting and what are your views on the utility of such a measure? : Secretary Powell, regarding Iraq, are you considering to any degree¹ a peaceful solution until now, and are there any contacts from the Arab sides, especially Saudis, regarding a peaceful solution about Iraq? : You said United States has not made much progress on pressing Asian powers to convene² a multilateral forum. Do you think the United States will be eventually³ successful for that? : Mr. Secretary, are you concerned by⁴ reports that Syria is also allowing people to move across its border into Iraq to fight against the coalition forces, and also that it may be not just allowing the Russian equipment in, but perhaps contributing other materiel to the effort? : Mr. Secretary, due to the present difficulties, would you like to see the "Powell Doctrine" being implemented in the war in Iraq?


¹ : 어느 정도 ² : 재개하다 ³ : 결국 ⁴ : --에 걱정하다 concern sb. 걱정시키다.


24. 파월 장관 기내 기자회견
Powell Says He's Thinking of Engaging DPRK Multilaterall
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, Feb. 22, 2003 (Secretary of state meets with media en route to Asia. Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke with members of the news media while en route from Washington, D.C., to Tokyo, Japan, February 21.) I'll go to your questions.¹ QUESTION: You and other State Department officials keep talking about a bold approach that would have been² offered or could be offered to North Korea if it would³ behave itself. Nobody has ever defined for me this bold approach. Could you tell me what was, is, could be in this bold approach? ;Can you give us an example of what you might be thinking about? : Why is a multilateral solution going to work any better than a bilateral one? If the North Koreans choose to cheat, they can just as easily cheat on everybody. : Mr. Secretary, you said last week that Russia and China would be threatened by a nuclearization of North Korea. Surely, North Korea is not going to attack either one of those two. How would they be threatened? : Are you concerned that while you're waiting for these other countries to get convinced that this is indeed an international problem, you're losing valuable time? : Last week, the Chinese foreign ministry said that they thought the best way to resolve this problem was for the United States and North Korea to talk in a bilateral fashion. Have you seen any indication at all that China is ready to use its influence and get involved in a more robust multilateral fashion? : I'd like to change subjects for just a minute. Do you know if the Blix letter on the missiles, on whether the missiles would be destroyed, has come out yet⁴ ? And what it says? : What would your choice be? Do you want the missiles destroyed or do you want them disabled in some way? : Could you give us an update on⁵ Turkey and the negotiations? Do you think you've made some progress⁶ on Turkey? : Back on North Korea. You've talked about the sort of leverage China could have over North Korea because of the food and the fuel that it provides. Does using that leverage entail somehow reducing the food and fuel aid they provide?⁷ Is that something you would expect from the Chinese? : Could you go into any more detail about your phone conversations with the Mexicans, the Chileans and Bulgarians about what you might be saying to them to persuade them not to abstain? : I wanted to ask you what you expected of China in terms of⁸ food and fuel. : Are you willing to risk a veto⁹ in order to get to a second resolution? I was sure you were going to begin that sentence with "never underestimate...." : Has the World Food Program put in place anything new that would suggest that this new food aid would be monitored any better than in the past and where do you expect to announce it?


¹ : 질문 받겠다. ² : --됐을 뻔 했던 ³ : 가정법. 대부분의 질문에서 가정법의 would가 사용되고 있다. ⁴ : 미사일이 파괴될 것인지 여부에 대한 블릭스 보고서가 벌써 나왔는지 (여부를 알고 있느냐) ⁵ : 어떻게 돼가는지 가장 최근 상황을 말해달라 ⁶ : make some progress 다소의 진전이 있다. ⁷ : Entail somehow reducing-을 어느 정도 줄이게 되다 ⁸ : in terms of (중국의 북한에 대한 식량과 연료 공급)과 관련해 ⁹ : 거부권까지 무릅쓰다


25. 파월 장관 동아시아 방문전 인터뷰
Powell Looks for Multilateral Talks with North Korea
Secretary interviewed prior to East Asian trip, Washington File, 19 February 2003 The United States will talk in the future with North Korea, but believes those talks will be more effective if they begin in a multilateral forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell says. QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. : Welcome back to our program. Thank you very much for joining us today. : We're privileged to¹ be speaking with you prior to your trip to Asia. The war with Iraq looks imminent² . Why do you choose this particular time for your Asia trip? : Let me ask you this question, which is being asked by everybody in this whole world, is the war with Iraq in weeks³? End of February or early March? : When? : It's a matter of time when -- : Can you give me a timeframe⁴ ? : You have said that China has considerable influence with DPRK. And what do the U.S. hope regarding⁵ China's role in defusing the crisis in the Korean Peninsula? : That's a question I wanted to ask you. The DPRK wants to deal with the United States directly, but the U.S. prefers to solve this problem in a multi-national framework. What's your strategy and approach to ending the impasse⁶ ? : Do you expect that China will ask for certain concessions from the United States in exchange for its help with DPRK, for example, with regard to the ongoing issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan?


¹ : --하는 특권을 누리다 ² : 임박해 보이다. ³ : 수주내 이라크와의 전쟁이 시작되나 ⁴ : a timeframe ⁵ : -에 관해 ⁶ : 꽉막힌 상태


26. 파월 국무장관 기자회견 "평양은 핵개발을 중지해야"
Powell -- Pyongyang Must Abandon Quest for Nuclear Weapons Washington File ,25 February 2003
Announces new U.S. food shipment for starving North Koreans Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United States stands ready to help North Korea, but the Pyongyang regime needs to understand that its "future relations with the world hinge on abandoning any nuclear weapons ambitions." : 000 000 of AP. Did you exchange thoughts with President Roh on ways to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions? : 000 from YTN. I'd like to begin my questions by quoting from President Roh's recent interview with Newsweek. President Roh said that North Korea is already in the midst of changes and that we need to view them as negotiating partners rather than as criminals. He said, "If we give the North Korean regime what they want, including a guarantee of the survival of their regime and economic aid, they could possibly give up their nuclear ambitions." However, I think this is a very different view from that of the United States, which views North Korea as not having changed, and as part of the "axis of evil." How would you qualify the difference in vi