미국시사해설 영어 대본

미국 워싱턴에서 Jim Lehrer 사회로 진행되는 PBS의 News Hour 대본입니다.
이 뉴스 대본 동영상은 미국시사해설 동영상에서 보실 수 있어요.

BBC 뉴스 동영상 칼럼
미국시사해설

영어설교 방송실
시사 칼럼
영화상영관
시사동영상
추천사이트
사이트맵
도서 검색창
미국시사해설 2006년 목록

BBC 비디오/DVD 서점

미국시사 추천연구도서

BBC 동영상 뉴스 카페


2007년 3월 20일: (1) 검사 파면 물의, (2) 이락 전쟁 4년
>> Lehrer: President bush and confrontation today over firing U.S. attorneys. Mr. Bush offered to let key aides talk to congressional committees. They include karl rove, the president's top political adviser, and harriet miers, the former white house counsel, plus two more officials. But they would not appear under oath, as democrats have demanded. Democrats quickly rejected the offer. Gonzales amid mounting calls for him to quit.

>> I support the attorney general. I told you in mexico I have confidence in him. I still do. He's going to go up to capitol hill and he's going to explain the very questions you asked. I've heard all these allegations and rumors. People just need to hear the truth. They're going to go up and explain the truth. 4600926F.JPG

>> Lehrer: A white house spokesman said reports they're hunting a replacement for gonzales are "just flat false, period." But the senate voted 94-2 today to strip the attorney general of his power to name U.S. Attorneys on his own. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. Republicans and democrats warned today they may revoke some of the F.B.I.'S power to hunt terror suspects. The justice department's inspector general, glenn fine, told a house hearing the F.B.I. Abused "national security letters." He said they were used illegally to collect phone, e-mail, and financial records. Congressmen on both sides said the F.B.I. Has to fix the problem or lose the power. 46009299.JPG

>> I hope you'll deliver a message that we expect it will be done. I mean because I don't think if you can get it done in four months you're going to have to worry about improving your procedures for N.S.L.Sbecause you probably won't have N.S.L. Authority.

>> We do not gto always be run by angells especially not this administration. It is not enough to mandate that the F.B.I. Fix internal management problems and record keeping because the statute itself authorizes if unchecked check of information on innocent americans.

>> Lehrer: The F.B.I.'S general counsel, valerie caproni, said she believes the programs can be fixed in short order. F.B.I. Director mueller is scheduled to appear tomorrow at a senate hearing. Iraqi officials hanged another of saddam hussein's top deputies overnight. Former vice president taha yassin ramadan was executed for the torture and killing of shiites in 1982. Later today, ramadan was buried in tikrit. He had first been sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court ruled that was too lenient. Nearly 50 iraqis were killed or found dead today, mostly in baghdad. Two car bombs hit shiite targets: One at a tunnel in the heart of the city, the other near the main bus station. 16 iraqis were killed in those attacks. Also today, two more U.S. Soldiers were killed on a combat patrol in southern baghdad. 460092F2.JPGFive.Sy security build-up. In washington today, major general michael barbero said the total could go higher still.

>> Conditions on the ground are going to change. We have only two of the brigades operational. The third one, as i said, its leaders have just started moving forward so as they arrive and the enemy changes and we change our tactics, techniques and procedures there may be additional assets that may be requested.

>> Lehrer: As part of the new operation, U.S. And iraqi forces staged a major operation late monday. They fought with insurgents in a northern section of baghdad. Witnesses said scores of people holed up in two shiite mosques. Iran may be under new pressure on its nuclear program. It was widely reported today russia has pulled its experts from a nuclear power plant being built in iran. The "new york times" said the russians demanded iran stop enriching uranium. That effort could lead to nuclear weapons. Russia and iran denied there was any ultimatum. The statements came as the U.N. Security council began discussing new sanctions on iran. Russia today faced its second major disaster in as many days. A fire swept through an elderly home in the south, killing 62 people. Officials said the night watchman ignored two alarms before reporting the flames. And to the east, the death toll 4600934B.JPGrose to 106, a day after a coal mine explosion in siberia. Four people were still missing. The final report on a fatal blast in texas partly faults a federal safety agency. A federal investigation board released the findings today. The accident took place in march of 2005 at a texas city refinery owned by british oil giant B.P. 15 people died and 170 were hurt. The report found the occupational safety and health administration was guilty of poor oversight. It also blamed B.P. For unsafe conditions. On wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained nearly 62 points to close at 12,288. The nasdaq rose more than 13 points to close at 2408. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now, doing the job of attorney general; covering the iraq war; health care in new orleans; and religion in society. 46009393.JPG

>> Lehrer: The fired U.S. Attorneys story continues. Newshour congressional correspondent kwame holman begins our coverage.

>> Reporter: President bush began his day with an early morning phone call of support to alberto gonzales, just as white house spokesperson dana was denying news reports that the search was on for a new attorney general. But as the day progressed so did the fire storm on capitol hill surrounding the justice department's abrupt dismissal of eight.S attorneys late last year. Democrats said 3,000 new emails and documents released by justice late last ni confirmed that the firings of politically motivated. Senate judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy. 460093BF.JPG

>> It was an abuse of power committed in secret to steer certain outcomes in our justice system and then to try to cover up the tracks.

>> Reporter: Republican john cornyn downplayed the significance was th of the dismissals noting that president clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office.

>> I don't see what the hubbub is about relieving eight U.S. Attorneys of their job. That's within the right of every president.

>> Reporter: But the latest documents shed new light on the build-up to the firings and the administration's attempts to control the damage once they occurred. On december 5, two days before seven of the attorneys were fian email that he had second thoughts about dismissing daniel bodden of nevada. I'm skittish about him, he said. I'll admit I have not looked at his district's performance. That would seem to contradict earlier testimony from justice officials that the firings were performance related. In fact, the emails show that he caused a stir within justice in february after he told a senate committee that one U.S. Attorney, bud cummings of little rock, was moved aside to make room for a protege of white house political advisor karl rove. Attorney general gonzalez apparently was extremely upset, according to a justice spokesman, and thought some of the statements that mcnaulty 46009410.JPGhad made were iat and earlier this month as congressional democrats prepared to subpoena the fired prosecutors to testify, internal justice department gonzalez's former chief of staff kile samson said bud cummings should not testify because he would tell the truth about his circumstances. Of being fired so that rove's aide could take over in little rock. Unhappy with the shifting stories, democrats are prepared to subpoena samson to testify and had hoped to get rove and former white house counsel harriet miers to testify as well.

>> The time for slippery explanations is over.

>> Reporter: But this afternoon following a private meeting with white house counsel freddi democrats chuck schumer and house judiciary committee chairman jon coniers said the white house offered only private interview s with the two, not under oath and not to be transcribed. 46009446.JPG

>> We are disappointed, and i think that may be an understatement.

>> Reporter: During his statement at the white house this evening president bush said that was the best deal he was going to offer.

>> We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. Initial response by democrats unfortunately show appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when i have agreed to make key white house officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. 4600947C.JPG

>> Reporter: Late today senate judiciary chairman patrick leahy rejected the white house offer.

>> Lehrer: Judy woodruff takes it from there.

>> Woodruff: For more on these developments and a look at the role of the attorney general, we're joined by stuart taylor, a legal affairs columnist with national journal and a fellow at the brookings institution. Michael carvin was deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel during the reagan administration, and now is in private practice. And walter dellinger was former acting solicitor general under president clinton, and is now a law professor at duke university. Walter dellinger, to you first. The president says he hopes there isn't a confrontation but it does appear there's going to be one. He says you can interview white house staff and others but we're not going to let you talk to them by subpoena. Who is on stronger ground here? The congress is saying that's not enough? 460094B2.JPG

>> Well, this will be clearly unacceptable to congress because the press room is so strong from the clinton presidency. What the president has offered is an informal interview, unsworn with no transcript and not sworn testimony in public. In the clinton administration, four white house, different white house counsels testified in public and under oath. Eight deputy or associate white house counsels testified in public and under oath. Ten officials testified in public and under oath a total of 47 times clinton senior white house officials testified in public under oath with a transcript so it will be very hard for congress to accept any lesst the facts a

>> Woodruff: Michael carvin, you come out of the reagan administration looking at this. Do you agree with walter dellinger that this is... that the president is in the other direction? 460094EC.JPG

>> Oh, yes, obviously the president is in theot direction. There's a very strong claim of executive privilege. This is advice within the white house itself. That's typically where you draw the line. Plus unlike the clinton used there's no evidence of criminal wrongdoing here. I even heard an allegation of criminal wrongdoing. There's allegations of abuse of the personnel system. The supreme court has made it clear you need a very clear showing of a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing to overcome the president's inherent power to get unfettered advice from his advisors. I'm not saying that as these things play out there won't be the normal ritual between congress and the president where some agreement will be worked out. I suspect that's typically how it works and will work here. That has a lot less to do with law than it does with power. 4600951E.JPG

>> Woodruff: Which side do you see on stronger ground?

>> I think they both have strong points but i think the way these things actually end is it depends on the president's political strength vis-a-vis congress as to where the deal gets cut. And if... and this president is looking pretty weak these days. Particularly with an attorney general who is not widely respected, who he's trying to save from being fired basically. Is he really going to be able to save his attorney general and prevent karl rove from having to testify at congress in the face of all the clinton precedents that walter cited at the same time? I think he faces an uphill battle in the real world. Now, in fairness to mike, every time white house officials testify before congress in open session, it degrades somewhat from the power of the presidency in a way that could come back to haunt us five or ten years from now. But that's hard ball in washington. 46009556.JPG

>> Judy, i want to give mike this point. Advice given to the president, there is an interest in having a president get unfettered advice from those who speak directly to him and to what they say to him and what he says back to them shielded except in fairly strong circumstances. But that's not necessarily what is being talked about here. The testimony of the white house officials are about conversations that occur between white house officials and justice department officials, not necessarily advice given to the president. And there the question is not whether they can relay what this conversations were but whether they'll do under oath and in public. 46009580.JPG

>> Woodruff: Moving to the attorney general, michael carvin, based on what is known about the circumstances around the firing of these eight U.S. Attorneys, should this attorney general be in trouble right now?

>> I really think this is much ado about very little. I'm not saying that they haven't mishandled this from a public relations perspective. They clearly have, but the notion that firing eight U.S. Attorneys with white houseed is somehow shocking is like saying you're shocked to discover there's gambling in casablanca. I don't know where these people have been. There's not one member of that judiciary committee who hasn't called the white house or the justice department and said my cousin or my law school roommate wants to be U.S. Attorney. The notion that these kinds of appointments and removals in walter's administration, they fired all 93 in one slot. The notion that is isn't influenced by the fact that the president needs his team in place, both at the main justice department and in the field, is really quite silly and quite counterfactual. 460095BC.JPG

>> Woodruff: Stuart taylor? I mean, where is the line drawn? The attorney general doing his job and the allegation that an attorney general has stepped over.

>> I think there are pretty clear lines. The trouble is figuring out where the facts lie. You fire the U.S. Attorney because you want him to do more death penalty cases that's fine. You fire him because you want a republican, that's fine. You fire him because you want more... because you want to put a patronage appointee in the job that's fine. You fire him because he's not prosecuting democrats or because he is prosecuting republicans, that's not fine. The problem that they've created for themselves here is they get into so many contradictory explanations for why they did so has toso great deal of suspicion that maybe they did it for illegi re cases. The fired U.S. Attorneys themselves have suggested that the reasons may have been illegitimate. They fired this one because she was investigating republicans. They fired that one because he was not getting tough on democrats, that sort of thing. 46009602.JPG

>> Woodruff: I think a lot of people look at this, walter dellinger, and they say not only is it confusing because there's so many strands to the story but people are asking what is the role of the attorney general? This is supposed to be someone who knows the president, who has the confidence of the president, but doesn't necessarily jump when the president or the white house says jump.

>> There is a different role for the attorney general than for the white house counsel. The white house counsel is an advocate for the president. The attorney general needs to maintain some independence from the political agenda of an administration and make sure that diss are made according to proper law enforcement standards. In this case, there's one and only one in my view serious charge. We don't know what the facts are, but one thing we have never done in this country, as stuart taylor suggests, is to either undertake or abandon a criminal investigation for partisan political reasons. We don't know that that happened here. If it did, it's a very serious charge. We hope it didn't happen. But that's the charge that is serious. It doesn't matter whether they're keeping the white house or the attorney general. But the attorney general is inan interesting position because the president does get to set law enforcement policy for the united states. 46009646.JPGThe attorney general should make sure that those are proper considerations to go into the determination of who you prosecute and don't prosecute.

>> Woodruff: Michael carvin on this point about walter dellinger saying that the one thing that matters here is whether an investigation, someone actively involved in an investigation was sidelined because of that investigation. Would you agree that's what this boils down to?

>> If it happened.

>> Woodruff: If it happened.

>> I totally agree with walter that it would be improper. Statistically you couldn't throw a dart at all the U.S. Attorneys in the united states and fire eight of them and not have some of them or one of them involved in what somebody would consider a politically sensitive investigation. So if you're just going to jump to the conclusion that the... because there was an investigation, that was the reason for the firing, i think that's extraordinarily least as far as I know there any documentary evidence. They did release all the emails from the white house to the justice department establishing this linkage. So right now it seems like a fishing expedition where they're trying to find wrongdoing rather than pursuing something that they know is wrongdoing or strongly suspected. 46009688.JPG

>> Woodruff: You've looked, stuart taylor, at a number of attorneys general how they've done their jobs. How does the way alberto gonzales has conducted himself compare to others?

>> I think the best formula for an attorney general is someone who has the president's certainly respect which often requires friendship as well. But is also independent and knows how to say no to the president and is a person of independent stature, a president whose stature is not derivative from his relationship with the president. You don't want a lap dog for the president. I think that what we have now frankly is a lap dog for the president. Mr. Gonzalez is a nice man. He was a competent lawyer. He's never had any stature in american government. 460096B3.JPG

>> Woodruff: What do you base that on, that statement?

>> If you look at his history he was plucked out of a law firm in texas. He came to washington the middle... at the beginning of the war on terror. He had no background in national security law. He's made a series of terrible blunders as white house counsel and as attorney general that in my opinion have weakened the presidency by overreaching on claims of presidential power so they've lost a bunch of supreme court cases for example.

>> Woodruff: How do you size up the attorney general.

>> I think he's implemented the bush policy in the way he has. There's been a lot of controversial national security decisions. If you look at the past 40 years name one attorney general that hasn't been caught in a partisan cross fire at least analogous to this. Janet reno, ed meese. Go down the lift. It's a tough job. You're making tough calls all the time. To single out gonzalez has somehow uniquely unqualified i don't think is fair. He was better qualified than a whole lot of attorneys general when he came into the job. 460096EF.JPG

>> Woodruff: This is par for the course, walter dellinger?

>> Yes, i would emphasize that nobody should jump to conclusions. We don't know what the facts are or any impermissible considerations were taken into account. But the impetus for an investigation is the fact that the explanations of why they

is so confusing and sometimes inconsistent. That is what has created the circumstance in which people want further investigation.

>> Woodruff: You do have the language in the emails of the kile samson who the attorney general's former chief of staff talking about who was a local bushy, quote unquote, and who wasn'T. Is that enough to make a big deal out of this? 46009715.JPG

>> If any senator wants to tell me that is the first time a president has hired people loyal to him in U.S. Attorneys jobs I will recede in all my objections to this investigation. But they know that's not true. There are lines, as stewart pointed out, sometimes the lines get a little blurry. But the notion that political affiliation and prior involvement in a president's life is not a factor is just ahistorical snud just to be clear, what would qualify as stepping over the line?

>> For example, carol lamb, the san diego U.S. Attorney was fired had prosecuted a republican congressman who was investigating another. The former now fired chief of staff for attorney general gonzalez kile sampson has an email where he says there's a real problem we have with carol lamb. Well, probably congress wants to know what was that problem. And was it that she's prosecuting our guys? Now, i suspect that there will be an explanation that there was a different kind of a problem and that in the end nobody is going to be... nobody is going to be proven to have acted in a corrupt fashion here. But it's natural for people to want to investigate it. 4600975B.JPG

>> Woodruff: All right. Gentlemen, much to talk about. We thank you all three for being with us. Michael carvin, walter dellinger, stuart taylor. Thank you very much.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Woodruff: Appreciate it.

>> Lehrer: Still coming tonight, health care in post-katrina new orleans; religion in society; and reporting the iraq war. Jeffrey brown of our media unit has that story behind the stories. Four years into the war iraq remains the deadliest country in the world for reporters, that according to the committee to protect journalists. Richard eveninging went to iraq as a free lance journalist four years ago before joining nbc. He kept a video journal of his time there and his documentary uncovering the war called war zone diary airs tomorrow. Here's a short excerpt, a note we edited out one particularly disturbing image. 46009798.JPG

>> Back up.

>> Reporter: We were caught out. We had been operating one way for several months. We thought that the pattern had emerged. We were able to go anywhere we wanted to in the country. Suddenly the rules of the game had changed. We were targets.

>> Everybody all right?

>> Reporter: Our hotel, our first bureau was bombed.

>> Move to the other side of the hotel.

>> Should have said yes.

>> Fortunately it wasn't big enough to knock the building down.

>>.

>> Reporter: Poor guy. He was one of the hotel's cleaning staff. He was sleeping in the lobby. 460097BE.JPG

>> I have a theory as to why insurgents are now attacking journalists. They're now making their own videos, posting them on the internet. I have hundreds of them where they show their own attacks and kidnappings and mortars.

>> The insurgents groups have evidently decided it's not worth it to talk to the western press.

>> Infidels we are here just to call them terrorists. Better, they think, to put their own message out. Post it so everyone in the world can see it and then try and drive reporters out of the country.

>> Brown: Richard engel joins us now from burbank also with us from cambridge england is john burns. The baghdad bureau chief for the "new york times" who has appeared often on this program to update us on events in iraq. Well, richard engel, we saw in that clip how things suddenly changed for you. Tell us more about how the dangers affect your reporting now. 460097F5.JPG

>> Reporter: The conflict we're covering right now is not the same war that we were covering four years ago. The initial phase of the bombing campaign had its limitations. There was the saddam government still in power. And then for almost a year we had complete access in the country and were able to go anywhere. It was a time of great exploration. I would drive my own car all over the country. And then foreign fighters started to come in. The sunni insurgency started to develop. And now it's come to the stage that we have to operate like thieves, going out into the city, stealing bits of information, conducting interviews in secret, and then bringing them out and putting our reports together. It is a completely different way of covering this conflict. 46009821.JPG

>> Brown: John burns, you've covered other wars and conflicts. How is this compared in terms of your ability to move around, your ability to talk to people, your ability to report the story?

>> Well, I've said it before. I think that in terms of sustained coverage, this is the most hazardous situation that western reporters, people like myself and richard, have been exposed to. In a generation. I say "sustained" because chechnya, somalia, darfur-- to cite only three examples-- exposed reporters to very great hazards over the much briefer periods of time that they tend to spend in these areas. In baghdad, of course, we're based there. We spend months at a time there. There's no doubt that the hazards are very great indeed and that that impacted quite seriously on our reporting. 46009855.JPG

>> Brown: John, staying with you, the question then is how much are your readers or viewers, richard's viewers and our viewers, how much are they seeing of the full story or is it just by definition in war that you don't get the full story?

>> Well, i see this is a glass half full for me. There's no doubt that, as i say, our reporting has been very much restricted, con trained by the hazards that we face. But I've been in the united states recently and discovered that you can live relatively anonymously on the front page of the "new york times" for 30 years but if you be on television people recognize you so people have been stopping me in the streets, at airports and on trains and talk to go me about iraq, in the united states. What I found was that the american public is extraordinarily well informed. While there are things we'd like to do that we cannot do, I don't think that there are any fundamentally important truths about this war that we have not been able to tell. I don't mean just the "new york times". I mean the other principal american newspapers. And the principal television networks. So i think on that score, the american public has been, my sense is at least talking to americans as i say over the last month or so, well served and that the american voterl ? the american television viewer, the american newspaper reader 460098A8.JPGknows full well what the state of affairs in iraq is.

>> Brown: Richard, in that number that I cited by the committee to protect journalists, by far the greatest danger is for iraqi journalists, the local people on the ground. You work with them. You talk about two that you work with in particular in your documentary. Tell us about how that works for you, your reliance on them.

>> Our dependency, you can see more than reliance, has grown over the years. That we have to use these local reporter-- and i don't mean it in an exploitative way-- but we have to rely on them and depend on them to be our eyes and ears in areas where we can no longer go. It is even becoming dangerous right now for iraqi reporters to go out into baghdad. We have to have iraqis from a particular neighborhood gathering information and taking pictures. Shiites from eastern baghdad simply cannot go to certain parts of sunni western baghdad, take pictures and bring them back to our bureau without risking their lives. So it is a often system where we have remote control and over the last several years we've developed networks of stringers, of informants, of snitches, whatever you want to call them, people who phone us in or bring in pieces of video that they've gathered all over the country. One of the main challenges we 460098FD.JPGface is trying to verify this information and try and double and triple check that it's accurate. That has been one of the main challenges that we've been struggling with.

>> Brown: Richard, another thing i noticed in watching your documentary this weekend when i got a screening copy was that you have a lot of gruesome footage there. You have a lot of mutilated bodies, body parts. How much of that appeared... how much, if any, of it appeared on the network news? How much of that real face of war do viewers see?

>> I personally don't think they see enough of it. That's not because i want to put anything gratuitously violent on the air. But this documentary is very different from the normal very fast tightly edited pieces that are put on nbc news. It is much slower. It's very raw. There is no story line, no characters. And no ending really. It just shows what the war has looked for me from the ground up. Often for iraqi families and for me that means seeing bodies, having friends who were kidnapped or killed and i think it reflects what have been the horrors of war. Also it shows sometimes some times that have been truly heroic, wounded carrying wounded soldiers out of battle. I think these extreme situations war time brings out the very best and the very 46009952.JPGworst in human nature and often times in war, in this particular one, it's the worst.

>> Brown: John burns, what do you think about to what extent people are seeing that face of the war?

>> Reporter: There's no doubt that the editors at the "new york times" and other principal newspapers and at the major american television networks exercise their judgment in sparing the reader or the viewer some of the worst violence. I think it's probably as well that they do. They do the same thing, after all, when violence occurred elsewhere in the world and indeed when it occurs on american streets. That doesn't trouble me a great deal. I think that the extent of violence in iraq is well understood by even the casual reader of an american newspaper. Or the casual viewer of an american nightly newscast. That doesn't concern me. I do want to say, if i may, listening to what richard said about the difficulty of going out, it is of course much more difficult for television crews to get out and about in baghdad because of the bulk, if you will, of a television crew where you've got to have a camera which makes you very visible and very vulnerable. It is more difficult for them than it is for us where we can send a lone reporter out who can, to some extent, operate sort of incognito, not completely. 460099A1.JPGWe have to be very careful about it. But if we want to go somewhere, we generally speaking can get there. We can generally speaking can get there ourselves. There are some cases where if we can't and where we do ask iraqis to go for us always on a willing partner basis but to make again the point i made earlier. If there's something important about the iraq war, we get there. We tell the story. I don't speak now only about the "new york times". I think it's equally true of the other principal newspapers.

>> Brown: Richard, you mentioned that your documentary is a personal take on the experience. And you say in the film that everyone there goes through four stages of sensibility, i guess, in experiencing or covering the war. Tell us a little bit about that and where you're at now. 460099D5.JPG

>> It's something of a theory. I'm not sure if every reporter goes through this. But I've noticed this in my own experience that stage one, when I first arrived I was perhaps more naive and ambitious about the covering of the war. I thought I'm invincible. I'm superman. Nothing is going to happen to me. Then as the conflict goes on, I thought, well, this really is dangerous, something might happen to me. Then you move into stage 3. I've been here aim something is probably going to happen to me. And then stage 4, this is it. I've used up all of my luck. I'm going to die here unless i leave. I think over the past years I've definitely put myself in stage 3 occasionally on bad days I'll even dip into stage 4. That is something that concerns me. 46009A02.JPG

>> Brown: John burns, does it take a personal toll on you? Do you feel that in a personal way, having been there all these years?

 


[BBC동영상 뉴스 칼럼][한국어 뉴스 동영상][미국시사해설][영화감상실][동영상][추천 사이트][사이트맵][영어 뉴스]