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 :-)

Hi FB--

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...7ed521033.mspx

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
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/20...-crapfest.html

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html

____________

___________

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

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/

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."





http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20060622/


Jun 22, 2006
Senator John Edwards
Washington, DC




"theFATboy" <theFATboy@chubs.net> wrote in message
news:89-dnSfbA4hlRcfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 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 :-)

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...
> Hi FB--
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...7ed521033.mspx
>
> 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
> http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/20...-crapfest.html
>
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html
>
> ____________
>
> ___________
>
> 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
>
> http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/
>
> 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."
>
>
>
>
>
> http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20060622/
>
>
> Jun 22, 2006
> Senator John Edwards
> Washington, DC
>
>
>
>
> "theFATboy" <theFATboy@chubs.net> wrote in message
> news:89-dnSfbA4hlRcfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> 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 :-)
>

Imageman--

I don't feel I gave you a good answer, so I'll continue to work on this.
Maybe in the meantime someone will give you a solution.

CH


"Imageman" <Images@Clean.New> wrote in message
news:5fOdne1-mIMPisbbnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 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...
>> Hi FB--
>>
>> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...7ed521033.mspx
>>
>> 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
>> http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/20...-crapfest.html
>>
>> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html
>>
>> ____________
>>
>> ___________
>>
>> 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
>>
>> http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/
>>
>> 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 &quo