Hi Chris--
Yeah. That's not defined as a deletion. That's a ressurection--or maybe a
file seance. It also is being defined as a file insurgency these days--you
could send Condi's right hand assistant to pronounce it successful just like
Colin Powell did a few years ago. I think it can only be stopped by
drafting elite suburban white men's children.
The comment on why if not in Paul Krugman's column today, could be in your
event viewer. Type event viewer in search>click it>Expand Windows Logs in
the left hand pane>Application>Use the down arrow to the time of the event.
To delete said file or folder:
1) Open windows explorer>locate it in explorer and try shift+ delete.
2) Use Doug Knox's Delete Undeletable Files
www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_undeletable_file.htm
3) Use this free app:
DelinvFile - Delete Invalid Files and Folders
http://www.purgeie.com/delinv/index.htm
Good luck,
CH
America apathetically and catatonically stares into space as they spend $3
Billion a week and kill thousands more until years later the DRAFT puts the
breaks on the killing.
Oh Yeah! Ann Romney is a Red Sock's fan and she and her husband would blow
your sons up in Iraq faster than you can say "Play Ball." You don't see the
multimillionaires giving any money for armored vehicles and you sure as hell
won't see their sons over there--typical Patrician White Republican
hypocrisy. The Red Socks crap is supposed to humanize the millionaire's
wife whose five sons wouldn't dare set foot in Iraq.
Boy if Fred and Mitt and Rudy are all they got, they be dead in the water
already.
Funny to hear Mitt talk about the Divine Right of Kings because that's
exactly what's wiretapping your butt now via Verizon and ATT who are trying
to hide behind the skirt (unsuccessfully of "States' Secrets."
__________________________
Monday, September 03, 2007 NYT
Snow Job in the Desert
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 3, 2007
In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United
Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual
evidence, just pictures of buildings with big arrows pointing at them saying
things like "Chemical Munitions Bunker." But many people in the political
and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he
said it, they believed it.
Mr. Powell's masters got the war they wanted, and it soon became apparent
that none of his assertions had been true.
Until recently I assumed that the failure to find W.M.D., followed by years
of false claims of progress in Iraq, would make a repeat of the snow job
that sold the war impossible. But I was wrong. The administration, this time
relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had
remarkable success creating the perception that the "surge" is succeeding,
even though there's not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it
is.
Thus Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution - the author of "The
Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" - and his colleague Michael O'Hanlon,
another longtime war booster, returned from a Pentagon-guided tour of Iraq
and declared that the surge was working. They received enormous media
coverage; most of that coverage accepted their ludicrous self-description as
critics of the war who have been convinced by new evidence.
A third participant in the same tour, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, reported that unlike his traveling
companions, he saw little change in the Iraq situation and "did not see
success for the strategy that President Bush announced in January." But
neither his dissent nor a courageous rebuttal of Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr.
Pollack by seven soldiers actually serving in Iraq, published in The New
York Times, received much media attention.
Meanwhile, many news organizations have come out with misleading reports
suggesting a sharp drop in U.S. casualties. The reality is that this year,
as in previous years, there have been month-to-month fluctuations that tell
us little: for example, July 2006 was a low-casualty month, with only 43
U.S. military fatalities, but it was also a month in which the Iraqi
situation continued to deteriorate. And so far, every month of 2007 has seen
more U.S. military fatalities than the same month in 2006.
What about civilian casualties? The Pentagon says they're down, but it has
neither released its numbers nor explained how they're calculated. According
to a draft report from the Government Accountability Office, which was
leaked to the press because officials were afraid the office would be
pressured into changing the report's conclusions, U.S. government agencies
"differ" on whether sectarian violence has been reduced. And independent
attempts by news agencies to estimate civilian deaths from news reports,
hospital records and other sources have not found any significant decline.
Now, there are parts of Baghdad where civilian deaths probably have fallen -
but that's not necessarily good news. "Some military officers," reports
Leila Fadel of McClatchy, "believe that it may be an indication that ethnic
cleansing has been completed in many neighborhoods and that there aren't as
many people to kill."
Above all, we should remember that the whole point of the surge was to
create space for political progress in Iraq. And neither that leaked G.A.O.
report nor the recent National Intelligence Estimate found any political
progress worth mentioning. There has been no hint of sectarian
reconciliation, and the Iraqi government, according to yet another leaked
U.S. government report, is completely riddled with corruption.
But, say the usual suspects, General Petraeus is a fine, upstanding officer
who wouldn't participate in a campaign of deception - apparently forgetting
that they said the same thing about Mr. Powell.
First of all, General Petraeus is now identified with the surge; if it
fails, he fails. He has every incentive to find a way to keep it going, in
the hope that somehow he can pull off something he can call success.
And General Petraeus's history also suggests that he is much more of a
political, and indeed partisan, animal than his press would have you
believe. In particular, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election,
General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which
he claimed - wrongly, of course - that there had been "tangible progress" in
Iraq, and that "momentum has gathered in recent months."
Is it normal for serving military officers to publish articles just before
an election that clearly help an incumbent's campaign? I don't think so.
So here we go again. It appears that many influential people in this country
have learned nothing from the last five years. And those who cannot learn
from history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it.
