Hi Chad! Actually what I'm doing, is opening a folder and dragging selected
files to another location
"When I open a folder in Windows Explorer and drag multiple files to another
location" - FB


"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:ef98vhUoHHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi FB--
>
> [url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/013d4526-3287-45b4-96ae-0eb356f7ed521033.mspx[/url]
>
> Dragging folders
> When you drag a folder This is what happens
> Into a folder on same hard disk
> The folder is moved to the destination folder.
>
> Into a folder on a different hard disk
> The folder is copied to the folder on the destination disk.
>
> Into the Navigation pane of a folder
> A link to the folder is added to the Navigation pane, and the link is then
> available from the Navigation pane of every folder.
>
> CH
>
> Wonder what it can be like to work on Vista at MSFT? You can read about
> it from a member of the Vista team and a 7 year employee who now works at
> Googoogoogle a MSFT competitor: I ran into this while looking for
> articles on file and folder copying tweaks in Vista:
>
> The Windows Shutdown Crapfest
> [url]http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html[/url]
>
> [url]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html[/url]
>
> ____________
>
> ___________
>
> Bush, Congress, and most of all Apathetic Americans getting the
> hypocritical
> democracy they deserve running the gas guzzlers and filling Dover Coffins
> with dead soldiers like it's goin' outta style:
>
> Apathetic America shopping and running gas guzzlers, their Congress and
> their moron leader are making lots more of these in the next few years:
>
> Photos of Military Coffins
> (Battlefield and Astronaut Fatalities)
> at Dover Air Force Base
>
> [url]http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/[/url]
>
> War Without End
> NYT Editorial
>
> Never mind how badly the war is going in Iraq. President Bush has been
> swaggering around like a victorious general because he cowed a wobbly
> coalition of Democrats into dropping their attempt to impose a time limit
> on
> his disastrous misadventure.
>
> By week's end, Mr. Bush was acting as though that bit of parliamentary
> strong-arming had left him free to ignore not just the Democrats, but also
> the vast majority of Americans, who want him to stop chasing illusions of
> victory and concentrate on how to stop the sacrifice of young Americans'
> lives.
>
> And, ever faithful to his illusions, Mr. Bush was insisting that he was
> the
> only person who understood the true enemy.
>
> Speaking to graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, Mr. Bush declared that
> Al
> Qaeda is "public enemy No. 1" in Iraq and that "the terrorists' goal in
> Iraq
> is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at
> home." The next day, in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush turned on a reporter who
> had the temerity to ask about Mr. Bush's declining credibility with the
> public, declaring that Al Qaeda is "a threat to your children" and
> accusing
> him of naïvely ignoring the danger.
>
> It's upsetting to think that Mr. Bush believes the raging sectarian
> violence
> in Iraq awaits reigniting, or that he does not recognize that Americans'
> support for the war broke down many bloody months ago. But we have grown
> accustomed to this president's disconnect from reality and his habit of
> tilting at straw men, like Americans who don't care about terrorism
> because
> they question his mismanagement of the war or don't worry about what will
> happen after the United States withdraws, as it inevitably must.
>
> The really disturbing thing about Mr. Bush's comments is his painting of
> the
> war in Iraq as an obvious-to-everyone-but-the-wrongheaded fight between
> the
> United States and a young Iraqi democracy on one side, and Al Qaeda on the
> other. That fails to acknowledge that the Shiite-dominated government of
> Iraq is not a democracy and is at war with many of its own people. And it
> removes all pressure from the Iraqi leadership - and Mr. Bush - to halt
> the
> sectarian fighting and create a real democracy.
>
> There is no doubt that organized Islamist terrorism - call it Al Qaeda or
> by
> any other name - is a dire threat. There is also no doubt that terrorists
> entered Iraq - mostly after the war began.
>
> We, too, believe that Iraq has to be made as stable as possible so the
> United States can withdraw its troops without unleashing even more chaos
> and
> destruction. But Mr. Bush is not doing that and his version of reality
> only
> makes it more unlikely. The only solution lies with the Iraqi leaders, who
> have to stop their sectarian blood feud and make a real attempt to form a
> united government. That is their best chance to stabilize the country,
> allow
> the United States to withdraw and, yes, battle Al Qaeda.
>
> The Democrats who called for imposing benchmarks for political progress on
> the Iraqis, combined with a withdrawal date for American soldiers, were
> trying to start that process. It's a shame they could not summon the will
> and discipline to keep going, but we hope they have not given up. As
> disjointed as the Democrats have been, their approach makes far more sense
> than Mr. Bush's denial of Iraq's civil war and his war-without-end against
> terror.
>
> May 28, 2007
> Editorial Observer
> What the History of Memorial Day Teaches About Honoring the War Dead
> By ADAM COHEN
> Memorial Day got its start after the Civil War, when freed slaves and
> abolitionists gathered in Charleston, S.C., to honor Union soldiers who
> gave
> their lives to battle slavery. The holiday was so closely associated with
> the Union side, and with the fight for emancipation, that Southern states
> quickly established their own rival Confederate Memorial Day.
>
> Over the next 50 years, though, Memorial Day changed. It became a tribute
> to
> the dead on both sides, and to the reunion of the North and the South
> after
> the war. This new holiday was more inclusive, and more useful to a
> forward-looking nation eager to put its differences behind it. But
> something
> important was lost: the recognition that the Civil War had been a moral
> battle to free black Americans from slavery.
>
> In "Race and Reunion," his masterful book about historical memory, David
> Blight, a professor at Yale, tells the wistful story of Memorial Day's
> transformation - and what has been lost as a result. War commemorations,
> he
> makes clear, do not just pay tribute to the war dead. They also reflect a
> nation's understanding of particular wars, and they are edited for
> political
> reasons. Memorial Day is a day not only of remembering, but also of
> selective forgetting - a point to keep in mind as the Iraq war moves
> uneasily into the history books.
>
> Many of the early Memorial Day commemorations, Professor Blight notes,
> were
> like Charleston's, paying tribute both to the fallen Union soldiers and to
> the emancipationist cause. At a ceremony in Maine in 1869, one fiery
> orator
> declared that "the black stain of slavery has been effaced from the bosom
> of
> this fair land by martyr blood."
>
> Less than a decade later in 1877 - when Reconstruction ended in the
> South -
> at New York City's enormous Memorial Day celebration, there was much talk
> of
> union, and almost none of slavery or race. The New York Herald declared
> that
> "all the issues on which the war of rebellion was fought seem dead," and
> noted approvingly that "American eyes have a characteristic tendency to
> look
> forward."
>
> There were dissenting voices. Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionist
> leader, continued to insist that Memorial Day should be about the battle
> between "slavery and freedom, barbarism and civilization." But the drive
> to
> make the holiday a generic commemoration of the Civil War dead won out.
>
> The new Memorial Day made it easier for Northern and Southern whites to
> come
> together, and it kept the focus where political and business leaders
> wanted
> it: on national progress. But it came at the expense of American blacks,
> whose status at the end of Reconstruction was precarious. If the Civil War
> was not a battle to determine whether a nation "dedicated to the
> proposition
> that all men are created equal" could "long endure," as Lincoln declared
> in
> the Gettysburg Address, but a mere regional dispute, there was no need to
> continue fighting for equal rights.
>
> And increasingly the nation did not. When Woodrow Wilson spoke at
> Gettysburg
> on the 50th anniversary of the battle, in a Memorial Day-like ceremony, he
> avoided the subject of slavery, Professor Blight notes, and declared "the
> quarrel" between North and South "forgotten." The ceremony was segregated,
> and a week later Wilson's administration created separate white and black
> bathrooms in the Treasury Department. It would be another 50 years before
> the nation seriously took up the cause of racial equality again.
>
> Since 1913, Memorial Day has changed even more. It has expanded - after
> World War I, it became a tribute to the dead of all the nation's wars -
> while at the same time fading. Today, Memorial Day is little more than the
> start of summer, a time for barbecues and department store sales. Much
> would
> be gained, though, by going back to the holiday's original meanings.
>
> When Memorial Day began, the war dead were placed front and center. The
> holiday's original name, Decoration Day, came from the day's main
> activity:
> leaving flowers at cemeteries. Today, though, we are fighting a war in
> which
> great pains have been taken to hide the nearly 3,500 Americans who have
> died
> from sight. The Defense Department has banned the photographing of
> returning
> caskets, and the president refuses to attend soldiers' funerals.
>
> Memorial Day also began with the conviction that to properly honor the war
> dead, it is necessary to honestly contemplate the cause for which they
> fought. Today we are fighting a war sold on false pretenses, and the Bush
> administration stands by its false stories. Memorial Day's history, and
> its
> devolution, demonstrates that the instinct to prettify war and create
> myths
> about it is hardly new.
>
> But as the founders of the original Memorial Day understood, the only
> honorable way to remember those who have lost their lives is to
> commemorate
> them out in the open, and to insist on a true account.
>
>
>
>
> FRANK RICH: Operation Freedom From Iraqis
> WHEN all else fails, those pious Americans who conceived and directed the
> Iraq war fall back on moral self-congratulation: at least we brought
> liberty
> and democracy to an oppressed people. But that last-ditch rationalization
> has now become America's sorriest self-delusion in this tragedy.
>
>
>
> However wholeheartedly we disposed of their horrific dictator, the Iraqis
> were always pawns on the geopolitical chessboard rather than actual people
> in the administration's reckless bet to "transform" the Middle East. From
> "Stuff happens!" on, nearly every aspect of Washington policy in Iraq
> exuded
> contempt for the beneficiaries of our supposed munificence. Now this
> animus
> is completely out of the closet. Without Donald Rumsfeld and Paul
> Wolfowitz
> to kick around anymore, the war's dead-enders are pinning the fiasco on
> the
> Iraqis themselves. Our government abhors them almost as much as the Lou
> Dobbs spear carriers loathe those swarming "aliens" from Mexico.
>
>
>
> Iraqis are clamoring to get out of Iraq. Two million have fled so far and
> nearly two million more have been displaced within the country. (That's a
> total of some 15 percent of the population.) Save the Children reported
> this
> month that Iraq's child-survival rate is falling faster than any other
> nation's. One Iraqi in eight is killed by illness or violence by the age
> of
> 5. Yet for all the words President Bush has lavished on Darfur and AIDS in
> Africa, there has been a deadly silence from him about what's happening in
> the country he gave "God's gift of freedom."
>
>
>
>
> It's easy to see why. To admit that Iraqis are voting with their feet is
> to
> concede that American policy is in ruins. A "secure" Iraq is a mirage,
> and,
> worse, those who can afford to leave are the very professionals who might
> have helped build one. Thus the president says nothing about Iraq's
> humanitarian crisis, the worst in the Middle East since 1948, much as he
> tried to hide the American death toll in Iraq by keeping the troops'
> coffins
> off-camera and staying away from military funerals.
>
>
>
> But his silence about Iraq's mass exodus is not merely another instance of
> deceptive White House P.R.; it's part of a policy with a huge human cost.
> The easiest way to keep the Iraqi plight out of sight, after all, is to
> prevent Iraqis from coming to America. And so we do, except for stray
> Shiites needed to remind us of purple fingers at State of the Union time
> or
> to frame the president in Rose Garden photo ops.
>
>
>
> Since the 2003 invasion, America has given only 466 Iraqis asylum. Sweden,
> which was not in the coalition of the willing, plans to admit 25,000
> Iraqis
> this year alone. Our State Department, goaded by January hearings
> conducted
> by Ted Kennedy, says it will raise the number for this year to 7,000 (a
> figure that, small as it is, may be more administration propaganda). A
> bill
> passed by Congress this month will add another piddling 500, all
> interpreters.
>
>
>
>
> In reality, more than 5,000 interpreters worked for the Americans. So did
> tens of thousands of drivers and security guards who also, in Senator
> Kennedy's phrase, have "an assassin's bull's-eye on their backs" because
> they served the occupying government and its contractors over the past
> four-plus years. How we feel about these Iraqis was made naked by one of
> the
> administration's most fervent hawks, the former United Nations ambassador
> John Bolton, speaking to The Times Magazine this month. He claimed that
> the
> Iraqi refugee problem had "absolutely nothing to do" with Saddam's
> overthrow: "Our obligation was to give them new institutions and provide
> security. We have fulfilled that obligation. I don't think we have an
> obligation to compensate for the hardships of war."
>
>
>
> Actually, we haven't fulfilled the obligation of giving them functioning
> institutions and security. One of the many reasons we didn't was that L.
> Paul Bremer's provisional authority staffed the Green Zone with
> unqualified
> but well-connected Republican hacks who, in some cases, were hired after
> they expressed their opposition to Roe v. Wade. The administration is
> nothing if not consistent in its employment practices. The assistant
> secretary in charge of refugees at the State Department now, Ellen
> Sauerbrey, is a twice-defeated Republican candidate for governor of
> Maryland
> with no experience in humanitarian crises but a hefty résumé in
> anti-abortion politics. She is to Iraqis seeking rescue what Brownie was
> to
> Katrina victims stranded in the Superdome.
>
>
>
>
> Ms. Sauerbrey's official line on Iraqi refugees, delivered to Scott Pelley
> of "60 Minutes" in March, is that most of them "really want to go home."
> The
> administration excuse for keeping Iraqis out of America is national
> security: we have to vet every prospective immigrant for terrorist ties.
> But
> many of those with the most urgent cases for resettlement here were vetted
> already, when the American government and its various Halliburton
> subsidiaries asked them to risk their lives by hiring them in the first
> place. For those whose loyalties can no longer be vouched for, there is
> the
> contrasting lesson of Vietnam. Julia Taft, the official in charge of
> refugees in the Ford administration, reminded Mr. Pelley that 131,000
> Vietnamese were resettled in America within eight months of the fall of
> Saigon, despite loud, Dobbs-like opposition at the time. In the past seven
> months, the total number of Iraqis admitted to America was 69.
>
>
>
> The diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began during the Vietnam War,
> told me that security worries then were addressed by a vetting process
> carried out in safe, preliminary asylum camps for refugees set up beyond
> Vietnam's borders in Asia. But as Mr. Holbrooke also points out in the
> current Foreign Affairs magazine, the real forerunner to American
> treatment
> of Iraqi refugees isn't that war in any case, but World War II. That's
> when
> an anti-Semitic assistant secretary of state, Breckinridge Long,
> tirelessly
> obstructed the visa process to prevent Jews from obtaining sanctuary in
> America, not even filling the available slots under existing quotas. As
> many
> as 75,000 such refugees were turned away before the Germans cut off exit
> visas to Jews in late 1941, according to Howard Sachar's "History of the
> Jews in America."
>
>
>
> Like the Jews, Iraqis are useful scapegoats. This month Mr. Bremer
> declared
> that the real culprits for his disastrous 2003 decision to cleanse Iraq of
> Baathist officials were unnamed Iraqi politicians who "broadened the
> decree's
> impact far beyond our original design." The Republican leader in the
> Senate,
> Mitch McConnell, is chastising the Iraqis for being unable "to do anything
> they promised."
>
>
>
> The new White House policy, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has joked, is "blame
> and
> run." It started to take shape just before the midterm elections last
> fall,
> when Mr. Rumsfeld wrote a memo (propitiously leaked after his
> defenestration) suggesting that the Iraqis might "have to pull up their
> socks, step up and take responsibility for their country." By January, Mr.
> Bush was saying that "the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt
> of gratitude" and wondering aloud "whether or not there is a gratitude
> level
> that's significant enough in Iraq." In February, one of the war's leading
> neocon cheerleaders among the Beltway punditocracy lowered the boom. "Iraq
> is their country," Charles Krauthammer wrote. "We midwifed their freedom.
> They chose civil war." Bill O'Reilly and others now echo this cry.
>
>
>
>
> The message is clear enough: These ungrateful losers deserve everything
> that's
> coming to them. The Iraqis hear us and are returning the compliment.
> Whether
> Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is mocking American demands for timelines
> and
> benchmarks, or the Iraqi Parliament is setting its own timeline for
> American
> withdrawal even while flaunting its vacation schedule, Iraq's nominal
> government is saying it's fed up. The American-Iraqi shotgun marriage of
> convenience, midwifed by disastrous Bush foreign policy, has disintegrated
> into the marriage from hell.
>
>
>
> While the world waits for the White House and Congress to negotiate the
> separation agreement, the damage to the innocent family members caught in
> the cross-fire is only getting worse. Despite Mr. Bush's May 10 claim that
> "the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially" since the
> surge
> began, The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the number of such
> murders is going up. For the Americans, the cost is no less dear. Casualty
> figures confirm that the past six months have been the deadliest yet for
> our
> troops.
>
>
>
> While it seems but a dim memory now, once upon a time some Iraqis did
> greet
> the Americans as liberators. Today, in fact, it is just such Iraqis - not
> the local Iraqi insurgents the president conflates with Osama bin Laden's
> Qaeda in Pakistan - who do want to follow us home. That we are slamming
> the
> door in their faces tells you all you need to know about the real morality
> beneath all the professed good intentions of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
> Though
> the war's godfathers saw themselves as ridding the world of another
> Hitler,
> their legacy includes a humanitarian catastrophe that will need its own
> Raoul Wallenbergs and Oskar Schindlers if lives are to be saved.
>
> PAUL KRUGMAN: Trust and Betrayal
> "In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always
> gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war." That's what
> President Bush said last year, in a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington
> National Cemetery.
>
> Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than
> any
> president in our nation's history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with
> reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness.
>
> Now that war has turned into an epic disaster, in part because the war's
> architects, whom we now know were warned about the risks, didn't want to
> hear about them. Yet Congress seems powerless to stop it. How did it all
> go
> so wrong?
>
> Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was
> misled
> into war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue
> administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there,
> for
> those willing to see them, right from the beginning - even before Mr. Bush
> began explicitly pushing for war with Iraq.
>
> In fact, the very first time Mr. Bush declared a war on terror that "will
> not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> stopped
> and defeated," people should have realized that he was going to use the
> terrorist attack to justify anything and everything.
>
> When he used his first post-attack State of the Union to denounce an "axis
> of evil" consisting of three countries that had nothing to do either with
> 9/11 or with each other, alarm bells should have gone off.
>
> But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attack,
> wanted
> to trust the man occupying the White House. And so it took a long time
> before Americans were willing to admit to themselves just how thoroughly
> their trust had been betrayed.
>
> It's a terrible story, yet it's also understandable. I wasn't really
> surprised by Republican election victories in 2002 and 2004: nations
> almost
> always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how bad the
> leaders and no matter how poorly conceived the war.
>
> The question was whether the public would ever catch on. Well, to the
> immense relief of those who spent years trying to get the truth out, they
> did. Last November Americans voted overwhelmingly to bring an end to Mr.
> Bush's war.
>
> Yet the war goes on.
>
> To keep the war going, the administration has brought the original bogyman
> back out of the closet. At first, Mr. Bush said he would bring Osama bin
> Laden in, dead or alive. Within seven months after 9/11, however, he had
> lost interest: "I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any
> command
> structure," he said in March 2002. "I truly am not that concerned about
> him."
>
> In all of 2003, Mr. Bush, who had an unrelated war to sell, made public
> mention of the man behind 9/11 only seven times.
>
> But Osama is back: last week Mr. Bush invoked his name 11 times in a
> single
> speech, warning that if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda - which wasn't there when
> we
> went in - will be the winner. And Democrats, still fearing that they will
> end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave
> Mr. Bush another year's war funding.
>
> Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public
> utterly
> disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it's not
> clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the
> nightmare of the Bush years won't really be over until politicians are
> convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering.
> And that hasn't happened yet.
>
> Here's the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which
> had
> nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a "movement" that "has already
> displayed
> more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us," he should be
> treated as a lunatic.
>
> When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of "Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah
> and
> Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda" wants to "bring down the
> West," he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.
>
> And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn't in Iraq, will "follow us
> home" if we leave, he should be laughed at.
>
> But they aren't, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed
> posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know
> nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people's children to
> graves at Arlington.
>
> MAUREEN DOWD: Bush's Fleurs du Mal
> WASHINGTON
>
> For me, the saddest spot in Washington is the inverted V of the black
> granite Vietnam wall, jutting up with the names of young men dying in a
> war
> that their leaders already knew could not be won.
>
> So many died because of ego and deceit - because L.B.J. and Robert
> McNamara
> wanted to save face or because Henry Kissinger wanted to protect Nixon's
> re-election chances.
>
> Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It
> knows the surge is not working. Iraq is in a civil war, with a gruesome
> bonus of terrorists mixed in. April was the worst month this year for the
> American military, with 104 soldiers killed, and there have been about 90
> killed thus far in May. The democracy's not jelling, as Iraqi lawmakers
> get
> ready to slouch off for a two-month vacation, leaving our kids to be blown
> up.
>
> The top-flight counterinsurgency team that President Bush sent in after
> long
> years of pretending that we'd "turned the corner" doesn't believe there's
> a
> military solution. General Petraeus is reduced to writing an open letter
> to
> the Iraqi public, pleading with them to reject sectarianism and violence,
> even as the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr slinks back from four months in
> Iran, rallying his fans by crying: "No, no, no to Satan! No, no, no to
> America! No, no, no to occupation! No, no, no to Israel!"
>
> W. thinks he can save face if he keeps taunting Democrats as the party of
> surrender - just as Nixon did - and dumps the Frankenstate he's created on
> his successor.
>
> "The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike
> our homeland," he told Coast Guard Academy graduates. "The enemy in Iraq
> does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people we must
> fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them
> where we live."
>
> The president said an intelligence report (which turned out to be two
> years
> old) showed that Osama had been trying to send Qaeda terrorists in Iraq to
> attack America. So clearly, Osama is capable of multitasking: Order the
> killers in Iraq to go after American soldiers there and American civilians
> here. There AND here. Get it, W.?
>
> The president is on a continuous loop of sophistry: We have to push on in
> Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, even though Al Qaeda is there because we
> pushed into Iraq. Our troops have to keep dying there because our troops
> have been dying there. We have to stay so the enemy doesn't know we're
> leaving. Osama hasn't been found because he's hiding.
>
> The terrorists moved into George Bush's Iraq, not Saddam Hussein's. W.'s
> ranting about Al Qaeda there is like planting fleurs du mal and then
> complaining your garden is toxic.
>
> The president looked as if he wanted to smack David Gregory when the NBC
> reporter asked him at the news conference Thursday if he could still be "a
> credible messenger on the war" given all the mistakes and all the
> disillusioned Republicans.
>
> "I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David," he replied sharply.
>
> But he isn't and he doesn't. Otherwise he might have read "Bin Laden
> Determined to Strike in U.S." in August 2001, and might have read the
> prewar
> intelligence reports the Senate just released that presciently forecast
> the
> horrors in store for naïve presidents who race to war because they want to
> be seen as hard, not soft.
>
> Intelligence analysts may have muffed the W.M.D. issue, but they
> accurately
> predicted that implanting democracy in Iraq would be an "alien" idea that
> could lead to turbulence and violence; that Al Qaeda would hook up with
> Saddam loyalists and "angry young recruits" to militant Islam to "wage
> guerrilla warfare" on American forces, and that Iran and Al Qaeda would be
> the winners if the Bushies botched the occupation.
>
> W. repeated last week that he would never retreat, but his advisers are
> working on ways to retreat. After the surge, in lieu of strategy, come the
> "concepts."
>
> Condi Rice, Bob Gates and generals at the Pentagon are talking about
> long-range "concepts" for reducing forces in Iraq, The Times reported
> yesterday, as a way to tamp down criticism, including from Republicans; it
> is also an acknowledgment that they can't sustain the current force level
> there much longer. The article said that officials were starting to think
> about how to halve the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, sometime in
> the
> second half of 2008.
>
> As the Hollywood screenwriter said in "Annie Hall": "Right now it's only a
> notion, but I think I can get money to make it into a concept and later
> turn
> it into an idea."
>
>
>
>
>
> [url]http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20060622/[/url]
>
>
> Jun 22, 2006
> Senator John Edwards
> Washington, DC
>
>
>
>
> "theFATboy" <theFATboy@chubs.net> wrote in message
> news:89-dnSfbA4hlRcfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=green]
>> Windows Vista Ultimate
>>
>> When I open a folder in Windows Explorer and drag multiple file to
>> another location, the Windows dialog box shows the 'From' folder and the
>> 'To' folder names, but not the name of the file being copied or moved. Is
>> there a way to enable this data in the dialog box? When copying or moving
>> multiple files, it would be nice to know which file Windows is working
>> on - Thanks, FB
>>
>> Sidenote: Vista runs great on my PC :-)[/color]
>[/color]