Mock exam participants:  By taking the test you agree to the following:  "I swear on my honor that I have completed the translation and the essay within one continuous period of four hours (three hours for Magister-Zwischenprüfung/Vordiplom Nebenfach), with no aid except a monolingual English dictionary.  I have received no help from anyone.  I have not seen an English translation of the German text, and I have not used any sources (on the Internet or otherwise) to write my essay.  I read the article for the first time, and wrote my essay (400-600 words) about it, and completed the translation, all within a continuous four-hour period.  I understand that the essay should present an argument for or against something mentioned in the article, with a clear thesis and well-developed supporting points.  I will not summarize or quote extensively from the article, but will develop my own argument in my own words.  I understand that both the essay and the translation should be easily comprehensible to an English reader who knows no German and is unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Follow the instructions at www.mdmorrissey.com/mock.

There are three exams here--a, b, and c.

Mock exam, June 4, 2004

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Die zweitägigen Anhörungen in New York City, die von der Kommission zur Untersuchung der Terrorangriffe vom 11. September 2001 durchgeführt wurden, verdeutlichten die Kluft zwischen den von Regierung und Medien produzierten Mythen rund um den 11. September und der Wirklichkeit, eine Kluft, die von den direkt Betroffenen seit langem schmerzhaft und deutlich empfunden wird.

Zur Konfrontation kam es, als der ehemalige Bürgermeister von New York City Rudolph Giuliani vor der Kommission erschien. Die Mitglieder des Ausschusses, der sich gleichermaßen aus Republikanern und Demokraten zusammensetzt, behandelten Giuliani wie einen Heiligen. Sie taten ganz so, als ob er persönlich die Tragödie und den Heroismus verkörpere, die mit den Anschlägen auf das World Trade Center in Verbindung gebracht werden, bei denen beinahe 3.000 Menschen, darunter viele Feuerwehrmänner und Rettungshelfer, ihr Leben verloren.

Dies entsprach zwar dem Bild, dass die Medien und Giuliani selbst penetrant propagiert hatten, doch nicht der Auffassung einer großen Zahl von Zuschauern, die Angehörige der Opfer waren. Sie zeigten deutlich ihren Zorn über die Aussagen des ehemaligen Bürgermeisters und die Speichelleckerei der Kommissionsmitglieder.

Translation a	Original
The two-day-long meetings in New York, which had been carried outwere held by the commission to investigate the terrorist attacks on the 11th of September 2001, clearly show the gab gap between the myths about 11th September 11th, created by the government and the media, and reality. This gab gap has already been painfully and plainly experienced for a long time by those directly concerned.	The two days of hearings held in New York City by the commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks exposed the disparity between the government- and media-crafted myths about 9/11 and the reality that has become all-too painfully apparent to those whom the events of that day touched most deeply.
At the very moment when When Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, appeared in front of before the commission, discussions began. Tthe members of committee, consisting equally of both Republicans and Democrats, treated Giuliani like a saint. They were acteding as if Giuliani himself was the manifestation perfect symbol of the tragedy and the heroism which are connected to with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre., There where nearly 3.,000 human-beings lost their lives, among those werethem many members of the fire rescue brigadedepartment and other rescuers.	The confrontation came with Wednesday’s appearance before the commission of Rudolph Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York City. The members of the panel, Democrats and Republicans alike, treated Giuliani like some sort of secular saint, the embodiment of the tragedy and heroism associated with the attacks on the World Trade Center in which nearly three thousand people, including hundreds of firefighters and other rescue workers, lost their lives.
This is close to the picture Giuliani and the media permanently intensively propagated of him, but this picture was against the consentit was not that of a great number of spectatorsin the audience who were close friends or relatives of the victims. They openly gave way to their anger about at the former mayor and the brown-nosing members of commission.	While this was the image that the media and Giuliani himself aggressively cultivated, it was hardly embraced by many in the audience who were relatives of those killed in the attacks. They erupted in anger over the ex-mayor’s testimony, as well as the fawning attitude of the panel members.

 

 

Translation b	Original
The two-day hearing in New York City, which has beenwas organized by the commission for the examination investigation of the 9/11 terror attacks, made the difference between reality andof the myths around surrounding September 11th more obvious, --mysths which is have been produced by the government as well as by the media. ThisA difference that havehas been felt clearly and painfully by the people directly sufferers affected already for a long time.	The two days of hearings held in New York City by the commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks exposed the disparity between the government- and media-crafted myths about 9/11 and the reality that has become all-too painfully apparent to those whom the events of that day touched most deeply.
It came/was coming to a confrontation when the ex-mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, appeared at before the commission. The committee members, which includes Republicans as well as Democrats, treated Giuliani like a holy person. They pretended toacted as if he himself would bewas the embodiment of the tragedy and the heroism himself, which are connected with the attacks on the World Trade Centre, where nearly 3.,000 people – lots ofmany firemen and ambulances rescue workers among them – lost their lifelives.	The confrontation came with Wednesday’s appearance before the commission of Rudolph Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York City. The members of the panel, Democrats and Republicans alike, treated Giuliani like some sort of secular saint, the embodiment of the tragedy and heroism associated with the attacks on the World Trade Center in which nearly three thousand people, including hundreds of firefighters and other rescue workers, lost their lives.
This corresponded with to the picture, which hadbeen intensively propagated penetrating by the media and Giuliani himself, but not with to the opinion of a high large number of the audience, which had beenwho were relatives to of the victims. They clearly demonstrated their anger about the ex-mayor's statements and the committee members' toadyism.	While this was the image that the media and Giuliani himself aggressively cultivated, it was hardly embraced by many in the audience who were relatives of those killed in the attacks. They erupted in anger over the ex-mayor’s testimony, as well as the fawning attitude of the panel members.

 

Translation c	Original
The interrogations hearings in New York City, realized organized by the commission on investigation ofinvestigating the terror attacks of September 11, 2001,  took two days and demonstrated the breach between the myths about September 11, produced by the government and the medias, and reality – a breach which has been sensed painfully and strongly for a long time by the people who were directly affected by it.	The two days of hearings held in New York City by the commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks exposed the disparity between the government- and media-crafted myths about 9/11 and the reality that has become all-too painfully apparent to those whom the events of that day touched most deeply.
A confrontation arose when the ex-mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, appeared before the commission. The member of the board, which consists of republicans both Republicans and democrats Democratsas well, treated Guiliani as if he was a saint. They behaved as if he personally represented the tragedy and heroism which are associated with the attacks on the World Trade Center in which almost 3,000 people lost their lifeslives, amongst them a lot of firemen and rescue workers.	The confrontation came with Wednesday’s appearance before the commission of Rudolph Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York City. The members of the panel, Democrats and Republicans alike, treated Giuliani like some sort of secular saint, the embodiment of the tragedy and heroism associated with the attacks on the World Trade Center in which nearly three thousand people, including hundreds of firefighters and other rescue workers, lost their lives.
This was conform consistent with the image which the medias and Guilliani himself propagated, but not with the opinion of a great number of the spectators audience who were related to the victims. They demonstrated clearly their rage against over the statements of the ex-mayor and the slimy behaviour of the commission’s members.	While this was the image that the media and Giuliani himself aggressively cultivated, it was hardly embraced by many in the audience who were relatives of those killed in the attacks. They erupted in anger over the ex-mayor’s testimony, as well as the fawning attitude of the panel members.

 

Essay:  Write an essay of 400-600 words (350-500 words for Sek. 1 candidates) agreeing or disagreeing with some point in ONE of the following texts.  Make sure your thesis (main point) and supporting points are clear and easy to follow, and relate to a specific point in the text.

Text 1:

The New York Times (editorial)

June 3, 2004

Shortcut on Nuclear Waste

The Senate may consider today whether to allow the Energy Department to reclassify certain nuclear wastes at a weapons plant in South Carolina so they can be disposed of faster and cheaper than if the department complied with current law. Although many senators may be tempted to skim over this issue as a matter of parochial concern to South Carolina, they need to consider this matter carefully lest they set a terrible precedent. The Energy Department has a notoriously poor record in handling environmental issues. It should not be granted such unbridled power to define its waste problems away with the stroke of a pen.

 

The Savannah River site in South Carolina has accumulated a huge inventory of radioactive wastes left over from weapons production, some 37 million gallons held in 51 underground tanks. Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, virtually all of this material is deemed high-level waste, which must be disposed of in a deep repository like the one being built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

 

For some years now, the Energy Department has been hoping to separate its wastes into two streams, reserving deep burial for only the part with high radioactivity. In the case of the South Carolina site, the department is prepared to pump most of the waste out of the tanks for disposal through deep burial. But it wants to leave a hard-to-remove residue of sludge in the tanks and bury it under grout.

 

Officials estimate that this approach could save $16 billion and trim 23 years from the lengthy cleanup process. But those plans were stymied when a federal judge in Idaho concluded that the scheme violated the waste-policy act.

 

Now Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has inserted language in a defense authorization bill that would achieve the same end. It would allow the department to reclassify the wastes in South Carolina in a way that would allow the disposal of some material on the site. Mr. Graham notes that the state's governor and its health and environmental regulators have signed off on the plan, and he says the decisions on how to handle each tank will be made collaboratively by federal and state officials.

 

Senator Graham's language is potentially a highly significant change in nuclear waste policy, yet it was inserted into a broad military authorization bill behind closed doors, without the benefit of hearings or open discussion. This is unacceptable, given that few areas could have more potential impact on public health for thousands of years into the future.

 

The Energy Department is largely empowered to set its own waste disposal policies, with only minimal oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Before allowing the department to reclassify its waste products, the Senate should follow the lead of the House and call for an in-depth study of the approach by the National Academy of Sciences. The decision should not be left to an agency that is desperate to get past a staggeringly difficult waste disposal problem.

 

Essay a

 

Remembering the horrifying pictures of the two atomic bombs dropped by the USA itself, politicians should remember their responsibility to handle carefully with nuclear waste. Under no circumstances nuclear waste should be reclassified in order to save money and time.

 

In the years of the Cold War the USA and the UDSSR witnessed their attitude towards nuclear warfare. They were in a state of hostility but neither the president of the United States, nor the president of the UDSSR dared to put the red bottom because both sides were aware of the horrible consequences. Dropping one or more atomic bombs means total destruction and a livelong radioactive pollution of a widespread area. Thus, anti-nuclear organizations even want a ban on the bomb at all.

 

Nuclear waste sends out powerful and dangerous rays, too, which are not visible for the human eye. In this case radioactivity is a silent and slow killer. With the decision to reclassify South Carolina’s nuclear waste the senators would ignore the hidden risk. The whole environment could suffer from their ignorance, people could get ill for example. This would not be the first time that officials of a high rank led this nightmare of making innocent people ill come true. During atomic tests at the Bikine archipelagos American soldiers were encouraged to look straight into the famous lightning which is produced at the moment of detonation. Afterwards the US military examined those young men and their bodies’ reaction on radioactivity. Most of them got ill in the successive years. The repetition of such an experiment has to be strictly avoided.

 

Some citizens of the United States of America sometimes claim themselves an example to look at. And with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 indeed birth was given to a very useful law which clearly classified nuclear waste and described how to deal with it carefully. These laws have not been invented without reason and similar laws actually can be found in other countries as well. The opportunity they offer is to protect the society and the environment against political decisions, as it is forbidden to create one’s own laws for individual purpose. Laws are not only guidelines, but also orders everyone has to follow, even senators.

 

The Energy Department strongly refers to the amount of money which could be saved by the Department’s way of dealing with the radioactive material. But this is not relevant because its members do not offer any long-term solution to the problem. In the worst case, an atomic accident, it would be much more expensive. Another contradictory they bring to discussion is the length of material being radioactive. Scientists have proofed that the period of time needed to make material less radioactive cannot be influenced at all.

The most effective way to abandon the danger and terror going hand in hand with nuclear warfare on the one hand and nuclear power on the other hand, would be to go back in time and prevent scientists to discover radioactivity. However this is a dream which will never come true, politicians have to search for other solutions to the problem they are faced with. Maybe the laws, developed under certain criteria,   have to be improved and brought to the standards of new methods, but in no case they are the toys of politicians. As long as nations go to war with nuclear weapons and as long as we do not use more of the alternative energy, there will be nuclear waste. A change has to go through society to wake up and realize this.

Corrected version

Remembering the horrifying pictures of the two atomic bombs dropped by the USA itself, politicians Politicians should remember the horrifying pictures of the two atomic bombs dropped by the USA their responsibility to handle carefully withwhen considering the issue of nuclear waste. Under no circumstances should nuclear waste should be reclassified in order to save money and or time.

 

In the years of the Cold War, the USA and the UDSSR witnessed [mdm1] their attitude towards nuclear warfare. They were in a state of hostility, but neither the president of the United States, nor the president of the UDSSR dared to put push the red bottom button because both sides were aware of the horrible consequences. Dropping one or more atomic bombs means total destruction and a livelongpermanent radioactive pollution of a widespread large area. Thus, anti-nuclear organizations even want a to ban on the bomb at allcompletely.

 

Nuclear waste sends outemits powerful and dangerous raysradiation, too, which are not visible for to the human eye. In this case, radioactivity is a silent and slow killer. With the decision to reclassify South Carolina’s nuclear waste, the senators would ignore the hidden risk. The whole environment could suffer from their ignorance, and people could get ill for exampledie in the thousands?. This would not be the first time that high-ranking officials of a high rank led this nightmarehave been guilty of making innocent masses of people ill come true. During the atomic tests at the Bikine Bikini archipelagos atoll American soldiers were encouraged to look straight into the famous lightningfireball which is produced at the moment of detonation. Afterwards the US military examined those young men and their bodies’ reaction on to radioactivity. Most of them got ill in the succeedingssive years. The repetition of such an experiment has to be strictly avoided.

 

Some citizens of the United States of America sometimes claimconsider themselves an example to look atparagons of environmental virtue?. And with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 indeed birth was indeed given to a very useful law which clearly classified nuclear waste and carefully described how to deal with it carefully. These This laws have was not been invented without a good reason, and similar laws actually can be found in other countries as well. They opportunity they offer is to protect the society and the environment against selfish political decisions, as it is forbidden to create one’s own laws for individual purpose. Laws are not only guidelines, but also orders, which everyone has to follow, even senators.

 

The Energy Department strongly refers to the amount of money which could be saved by the Department’s way of dealing with the radioactive materialwants to save money. But this is not relevant because its membersthey do not offer any long-term solution to the problem. In the worst case, an atomic accident, it would be much more expensive. Another contradictory they bring to discussion is the length of material being radioactive. Scientists have proofed that the period of time needed to make material less radioactive cannot be influenced at all. [mdm2] 

The most effective way to abandon avert/eliminate the danger and terror going hand in hand with both nuclear warfare armament? on the one hand and nuclear power on the other hand, would be to go back in time and prevent scientists to from discovering radioactivity. However, this is a dream which will never come true, so politicians have to search for other solutions to the problem they are faced with. Maybe the laws, developed under certain criteria,   have to be improved and brought to the standards of new methods, but in no case they are the toys of politicians. [mdm3] As long as nations prepare to go to war with nuclear weapons, and as long as we do not use more of the alternative energy, there will be nuclear waste[mdm4] . A change has to go throughoccur in society to wake people wake up and make them realize this.

Text 2:

June 3, 2004

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, The New York Times

The Campaign Comes to Rome

By JOHN L. ALLEN Jr.

ROME

In June 1983, Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, then prime minister of Poland, received Pope John Paul II at the Belvedere Palace in Warsaw. It was the pope's second trip to his home country, but the first since the general had imposed martial law 18 months earlier, and in a speech before their meeting the general defended his decision. Despite the defiant tone of the speech, many reporters noticed, General Jaruzelski's knees were shaking.

 

Tomorrow President Bush will call upon Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. After their meeting they will appear before reporters, but the most interesting question may be one that needn't be asked: Will George Bush's knees be knocking when he meets with the pope?

 

In some ways it's an ungainly comparison, since the pope has never issued a condemnation of American militarism or capitalism as sweeping as his denunciation of Soviet Communism. There is also little evidence that the political price for defying the pope is as steep in the United States today as it was in Poland in the mid-1980's. Yet the Catholic vote is important to the president, and there is no denying that John Paul II is deeply troubled by what Mr. Bush is doing under the guise of the war on terrorism.

 

In recent months — in papal commentaries, in speeches and interviews with senior Vatican officials, and in commentaries by the Vatican's radio station and newspaper — the Vatican critique of American foreign policy has focused on several points.

 

The first is the doctrine of pre-emptive force. The Bush administration argues that when it has intelligence about imminent threats to the United States, it has the right to strike first. The Vatican insists that a single nation-state never has this right. Only the United Nations can authorize military action to disarm an aggressor, to ensure that disarmament is the real objective rather than a particular country's political or commercial interests.

 

The Holy See has repeatedly complained about American unilateralism and called on Mr. Bush to work through the United Nations. But while the Vatican sees the United Nations as a sovereign entity, able to pursue policies and attain goals of its own, Mr. Bush sees it merely as an instrument of sovereign states, each of which retains liberty of action.

 

Underlying these disagreements is a fundamental difference between the White House and the Vatican regarding the importance of international law. The Bush administration has taken a selective approach to international law, arguing that the new threat posed by terrorism makes some old agreements irrelevant.

 

The Vatican insists on international law as the only way to ensure "the force of law rather than the law of force," as the Vatican's former foreign minister, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, repeatedly put it during the months before the invasion. It has often criticized the United States for ignoring the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. And the Vatican's foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, in a May 12 interview with a Roman newspaper, called the Abu Ghraib prison scandal "a worse blow to the United States than Sept. 11."

 

Apart from these concerns about America's respect for the world, many in the Vatican are also worried that some American values themselves are unhealthy. Ideals like individual autonomy, liberalism and pragmatic morality can be dangerous from the point of view of Roman Catholic anthropology and social ethics. They do not lend themselves to a strong sense of community, either in civil society or in the church. Vatican officials worry about their uncontrolled diffusion with America as the world's lone superpower.

 

To be sure, there is a higher personal regard in the Vatican for Mr. Bush than for his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Mr. Bush and the pope agree on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. None of that, however, can mask their deep differences on international policy.

 

Hence both George Bush and John Paul II have something at risk at tomorrow's meeting. For Mr. Bush, his image as the "religious" candidate could be tarnished if he's seen as having been chastised by the most authoritative Christian leader in the world. The White House asked for this meeting, even adjusting the president's schedule to make it possible before the pope leaves for Switzerland on Saturday. No doubt the president's advisers believe a photo op with the pope could be useful in battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where the Catholic vote could be decisive.

 

For the pope, however, much more than short-term political advantage is at stake. In 1989, John Paul was the man who brought down Communism. But has his influence been as dramatic since? If the greatest threat today is a "clash of civilizations" pitting the Western world against Islam, then many at the Vatican say American foreign policy is stoking precisely that conflict. The question is, can the pope — now 84 and ailing — do anything about it?

 

Unfortunately, when John Paul II and George Bush appear before the cameras tomorrow, they will almost certainly be seated. So it will be harder to see whether the president's knees are shaking.

 

John L. Allen Jr. is the Vatican correspondent for National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly newspaper.

Essay b

Although I am not a Catholic and not going to church on Sunday I strongly agree with the Vatican statements which are mentioned in the text “The Campaign Comes to Rome”. In my point of view the current president of the United States, Mr. George W. Bush, pursues a completely arrogant and therefore wrong policy. It is true that no single nation-state has the right to do such military actions by its own like America does it at the moment, and on top of it for such questionable reasons. By the way, is it be proven till today that Hussein has owned these weapons of mass destruction as Bush has claimed to justify / defend the need for the war in Iraq? So the Vatican’s argument that only the United Nations can authorized such military actions to ensure that real values like social ethics are defended and supported, looks absolutely logical and therefore right to me.

 

Because of these disagreements and fundamental differences between the White Houses policy, and the Vatican’s opinion about policy, it seems quite courageous from Mr. Bush to have a meeting with the pope. In his speeches Mr. Bush often uses the name of god to justify his actions, and therefore it can be assumed that he would be harshly chastised by the pope, because it almost looks like blasphemy. In this way the wish for that meeting can also be seen as an indicator for Bushes fear of the coming election in November, and he only want to satisfy his Catholic voters to get their support. But, as it is already mentioned in the article, this could also be a backfire to him if he will be strongly criticized by the pope. In the same way that could be a chance for American voters to get aware of their presidents calculated and unscrupulous character. Therefore the meeting with the pope could be a good one.

 

But unfortunately I do not believe that the meeting with the pope will change Mr. Bushes attitude towards his policy as it had happened in 1989 when the pope brought down Communism. Therefore Mr. Bush is too fanatic and arrogant with his strange thought in mind that only America has the power and the right to defend the whole world against terrorism and any other harm. He is so convinced by himself that he has lost sight of that probably his policy can be blamed for the recent danger of terror attacks all over the world. Because his policy seems not to protect against further attacks, but it comes up to more aggressive actions by the terrorists.

 

By the way, I do not believe that Mr. Bush’s knees will be shaking because I am not sure if he has any respect for any person.

Corrected version

Although I am not a Catholic and do not going to church on Sunday, I strongly agree with the Vatican statements which are mentioned in the text l“The Campaign Comes to Rome”. In From my point of view, the current president of the United States, Mr. George W. Bush, pursues is pursuing a completely arrogant and therefore wrong [mdm5] policy. It is true that no single nation-state has the right to do suchcondluct the kind of military actions by on its own like that America is conduct does it at the moment, and on top of it that,  for such questionable reasons. By the way, hasis it been proven till today that Hussein has ownedhad these those weapons of mass destruction as Bush has claimed claimed he had, to justify / defend the need for the war in Iraq? So the Vatican’s argument that only the United Nations can authorized such military actions to ensure that real values like social ethics [mdm6] are defended and supported, looks absolutely logical and therefore right [mdm7] to me.

 

Because of these disagreements and fundamental differences between the White House's policy, and the Vatican’s opinion about of that policy, it seems quite courageous from of Mr. Bush to have a meeting with the pope. In his speeches Mr. Bush often uses the name of god to justify his actions, and therefore it can be assumed that he would be harshly chastised for this by the pope, because it this is almost looks like blasphemy. In this way the wish for thatThus the meeting can also be seen as an indicator for of Bushes Bush's fear of the coming election in November, and he only wanthis desire to satisfy his Catholic voters to and get their support. But, as it is already mentioned in the article, this could also be a backfire to on him if he will beis strongly criticized by the pope. In the same way that couldThis would  be a chance for American voters to get become aware of their president's calculated calculating and unscrupulous character. In that sense, Therefore the meeting with the pope could be a good onehave a positive result.

 

But unfortunately I do not believe that the meeting with the pope will change Mr. Bushe's attitude towards his policy as it had happened in 1989 when the pope brought down Communism[mdm8] . Therefore Mr. Bush is too fanatic fanatical and arrogant for that?, with his strange thought in mind that only America the US has the power and the right to defend the whole world against terrorism and any other harm. He is so convinced by himselfself-righteous? that he has lost sight of the fact that probably his policy itself can probably can be blamed for the recent danger of terror attacks all over the world, . Because his policy seems not to protect anyone against further attacks, but it comes up to provokemore aggressive actions by the terrorists.

 

By the way, I do not believe that Mr. Bush’s knees will be shaking because I am not sure if he has any respect for any personenough sense for that?.

Essay c

I share John L. Allen’s opinion that the main object of president Bush’s visit at the Vatican is to gain votes of catholic Americans. Only a few months before the presidential elections the position of president George W. Bush is not stable at all, and it is obvious that he and his advisers have to take extreme and even risky measures in order to convince the Americans to give their votes to him once again.

 

Especially his foreign policy evoke a lot of critics and protest. When he declared in connection with the attacks of Semptember 11 that he would make “war against terrorism”, a lot of people supported his aim because they were longing for a way to respond to the terrible events that had happenend in America’s financial and cultural heart and had cost so many lifes of civilians. But when Bush started the invasion of Iraq against the will of the United Nations, critical voices become louder. The increasing number of dead American soldiers, the fact that no mass destruction arms where found in Iraq, although this was used as the offical reason and justification by the administration for the invasion, and the recent news of the mistreatments of Iraqi persons by US soldiers have made Bush loosing his face and have given invincible arguments to his opponents.

 

Furthermore, the reelection of George W. Bush is threatened by domestic issues. He and his administration is suspected to practice political censorship which is an unforgivable sin in a democratic system. The debates about the political motivation of Disney’s efforts to prevent the publication of Michael Moore’s latest movie were quite loud. And recent events like the resignation of the CIA leader makes Bush’s situation still worse.  

 

In my opinion, these are the main reasons why the religious argument is urgently needed in this election campaign. As the author mentions, this strategy especially could be successful in states with high catholic rates like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Bush has all the time emphasized the importance of catholic values. His refusal of abortion or homosexual marriage were published as great issues, especially addressed to the great moral and prudish part of the American population. Concerning these cultural issues the pope completely agrees with the American president, and the visit at the Vatican and a commendation by the pope would be the best demonstration of the correctness of  Bush’s attitudes for the American catholics. But as Allen mentions, it is a quite risky measure because of the pope’s enormous opposition concerning american foreign policy and also general values like individualism. The audience could turn out as another disgrace for Bush. The president and his advisers have to be either very convinced of a positive treatment by the pope or they just see no other possibility to regain support and sympathy, in other words: votes of the American population. In my opinion, the fact that the president’s schedule was adjusted in order to make this audience at the Vatican possible, proves that the second motivation is the true one: the issues which I mentioned above have reduced Bush’s chances for reelection so that the catholic aspect is needed as a convincing argument. If the meeting with the pope turns out positive for Bush it can have important effects on a great number of voters. 

Corrected version

I share John L. Allen’s opinion that the main object of president President Bush’s visit at to the Vatican is to gain votes of catholic Catholic Americans. Only a few months before the presidential elections, the position of president President George W. Bush is not stable good? at all, and it is obvious that he and his advisers have to take extreme and even risky measures in order to convince the Americans to give their votes to him once again.

 

Especially hHis foreign policy, especially, has evoked a lot of criticism and protest. When he declared, in connection with the attacks of Semptember 11, that he would make “war against terrorism”, a lot of people supported his aim because they were longing for a way to respond to the terrible events that had happenend in America’s financial and cultural heart and had cost so many lifes lives of civilians. But when Bush started the invasion of Iraq against the will of the United Nations, the critical voices become louder. The increasing number of dead American soldiers, the fact that no weapons of mass destruction arms where found in Iraq, although this was used as the offical reason and justification by the administration for the invasion, and the recent news of the mistreatments of Iraqi persons prisoners by US soldiers have made Bush loosing lose his face and have given invincible arguments to his opponents.

 

Furthermore, the reelection of George W. Bush is threatened by domestic issues. He and his administration is are suspected to of practice practicing political censorship, which is an unforgivable sin in a democratic system. The debates about the political motivation of Disney’s efforts to prevent the publication distribution of Michael Moore’s latest movie were have been quite loud. And recent events like the resignation of the CIA leader makes Bush’s situation still worse.  

In my opinion, these are the main reasons why the religious argument is urgently needed in this election campaign. As the author mentions, this strategy especially could be especially successful in states with highlarge catholic Catholic rates populations, like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Bush has all the timealways emphasized the importance of catholic Catholic/Christian? values. His refusal rejection of abortion or and homosexual marriage were published touted as great issues, especially addressed especially to the great moral and prudish part majority? of the American population. Concerning these cultural issues, the pope completely agrees with the American president, and the visit at to the Vatican and a commendation by from the pope would be the best demonstration of the correctness of  Bush’s attitudes for the American catholicsCatholics. But as Allen mentions, it is a quite risky measure because of the pope’s enormous strong opposition concerningto american American foreign policy and also general values like individualism[mdm9] . The audience could turn out as another disgrace for Bush. Either The the president and his advisers have to be either very convinced confident of a positive treatment by the pope, or they just see no other possibility to of regaining support and sympathy[mdm10] , or in other words,: votes of the American population. In my opinion, the fact that the president’s schedule was adjusted in order to make this audience at the Vatican possible, proves that the second motivation is the true one: the issues which I mentioned above have reduced Bush’s chances for reelection so much that the catholic Catholic aspect vote is neededcrucial as a convincing argument. If the meeting with the pope turns out positive for Bush it can have important an effects on a great number of voters.