plus 4, Stocks May Open Moderately Higher Despite Weak Jobs Report - U.S ... - RTT News |
- Stocks May Open Moderately Higher Despite Weak Jobs Report - U.S ... - RTT News
- About what you said, Mr. President - Democratic Underground.com
- Due to Adverse Weather Conditions, Goodrich Unable to Address the Bank ... - Stockhouse
- Can Sarkozy and Brown kiss and make up? - New Statesman
- Thursday's Stocks to Watch: Ciena - Yahoo Finance
| Stocks May Open Moderately Higher Despite Weak Jobs Report - U.S ... - RTT News Posted: 10 Dec 2009 05:52 AM PST
US Market Updates
Stocks May Open Moderately Higher Despite Weak Jobs Report - U.S. Commentary 12/10/2009 8:56 AM ET (RTTNews) - Stocks are poised to move moderately higher at the opening bell on Thursday, despite the release of a worse-than-expected weekly jobs report. The major index futures are all in positive territory, with the Dow futures up by 54 points. First-time claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly increased in the week ended December 5th, according to a report released by the Labor Department on Thursday, although claims remained well below the key 500,000 level. Initial jobless claims rose to 474,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 457,000. The modest increase came as a surprise to economists, who had been expecting jobless claims to edge down to 455,000. At the same time, the report showed a notable decrease in continuing claims. Separately, the Commerce Department released its report on U.S. international trade in goods and services in the month of October, showing that the trade deficit narrowed to $32.9 billion in October from a revised $35.7 billion in September. Economists had been expecting the deficit to widen to $36.8 billion from the $36.5 billion originally reported for the previous month. Also on tap for today is the Treasury Budget, a monthly account of the surplus or deficit of the federal government, slated for release at 2 p.m. ET. Economists estimate that the deficit narrowed to $131.6 billion for November. On the corporate front, Citigroup Inc. (C) plans to repay $20 billion in TARP funds by raising capital in an equity offering and is currently finalizing details with the Treasury Department. On Wednesday, Bank of America Corp. (BAC) announced that it has repaid the Treasury $45 billion worth of the bailout funds it was issued last year. Web services provider AOL, Inc. (AOL), spun-off from media and entertainment giant Time Warner, Inc. (TWX), will make its return to the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "AOL" later in the day. Membership warehouses operator Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) said that it had posted a slight increase in its first-quarter net profit on improved sales. On a per share basis, earnings remained flat with last year and came in line with the Street view.
This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| About what you said, Mr. President - Democratic Underground.com Posted: 10 Dec 2009 05:59 AM PST THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country. He was there because he had a captive audience that couldn't object, had to applaud, and To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. We complained about it when Bush did it, and when Gulliani did it. I'm not sure why As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. A history lesson. Has anyone notice that OBL isn't there anymore? Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security. More history, that ignores that the basis for those declarations is now gone. The lie of omission. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. No, it did not. It now had the ability to return to its tribal/warload/feudal ways. The drug trade began At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. Wait, wait, a moment ago he was talking about congressional authorization? That war was authorized too. Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. A week later the pentagon announces we'll may have to slow down our with drawl. Troop levels are We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. When this doesn't come to pass (as the Pentagon is now suggesting) do we get to call that a lie? That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. So we're after Al Qaeda, they are gone to a "friendly" nation, but we now need to focus.... well Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people. He speaks as if the Afghan people are some unified population. They are at war with themselves. Yes, Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. How can a corrupt government be "consistent with the laws and constitution'? Yet huge challenges remain. For the Afghans, to figure out what they want, and are willing to work for. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. From where, to where? They have moved AWAY from where Obama wants them to be. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces What security forces? There are virtually none. A report out today explains that those that exist do and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable. Apparently we don't want to sustain the status quo. So why are we trying? As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less. This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. What are those interests? Al Qaeda is no longer there. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. When will they be back to the current levels? When will they be back to Jan 2009 levels? Your These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. And how many Afghan's must die to accomplish this? I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. And not killing innocent Afghans. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. How about the innocent Afghans you will have killed? I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. Why is our security tied to a bunch of folks who can't defend themselves, much less project power to So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that's not where many of the troops are going. We have plenty to patrol that region, especially This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, No, it is not. That's a lie. We were attacked from right here in the US. They trained here. The CAME and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. How? They have no capacity to project power. The people you seek are in PAKISTAN and Yehmen, and This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides back wards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. What "partners"? Karzi? That's where our money goes? That's where our blood goes? The best Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. So the problem is Pakistan and where are you sending the troops? These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan THEY AREN'T THERE. We chased them out. Heck, there are more in Iraq than in Afghanistan.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. Done, come on home. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. They are the government in many places. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. You can't strengthen that which does not exist. We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. Which "Afghanistan"? Karzi's corrupt government? The Northern Alliance? Any of the other war lords? The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. What afghans? The 400,000 that don't exist? Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. The largest of whom have already told ya to pound sand. Putting together your own "coalition of the willing"? Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world. They why are you pursing this failing strategy which is relatively indistinguishable from your predecessors? But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, Accelerate? You mean you've already handed over responsibility? Which corrupt set got that honor? and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. How many? How fast? When will we be back at the current levels. When are we back at Jan 2009 levels? Just as we have done in Iraq, We haven't in Iraq. We're still there. We're still there in numbers approximately as large as we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. Isn't that what we've been doing for 9 years? We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. Which afghan people? The Northern Alliance? Karzi's family? The pashtun? Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. What improved security? You said we were moving back wards remember? There is nothing of which to This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. By increasing it. Your own commanders are explaining that there will be GREATER bloodshed because of We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron. What leads you to believe that the people inside of Afghanistan care one bit about what you want? Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. Which part? The part of the security forces that are sympathetic to the Taliban? We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. But that's not where you are sending your troops. In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. Yet we are sending 30,000 troops to.... Afghanistan nowhere near the border. In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. Nor for the innocents around them I'll point out. Tough to sort out from a drone ain't it. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. Bet you don't address a single one that I mentioned. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. None of these are the reasons many of your critics compare it to Vietnam. Nice strawman Mr. President. Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." So the women of America must give up abortion coverage so that we can kill more innocent Afghans. Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. $30 Billion more OVER the additional billions you've already spent by increasing the forces there But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own. Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies. So, you have plans for more wars after Afghanistan? Yehmen? Somalia? Care to run down that list So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them. We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. You do realize WE are killing "innocents" in both Afghanistan and Pakistan right? You might wanna And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America's authority. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.) As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. By killing innocent people. In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.) Peace isn't partisanship, but a nice way of slandering those who don't agree with you. They It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. You can't accomplish this by only inviting to the table those who will agree with you. Where were the America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.
This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| Due to Adverse Weather Conditions, Goodrich Unable to Address the Bank ... - Stockhouse Posted: 10 Dec 2009 06:06 AM PST CHARLOTTE, N.C., Dec 10, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Due to adverse weather conditions in the New York City area on December 9, Marshall Larsen, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Goodrich Corporation (NYSE: GR), will not address the Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2009 Global Industries Conference on Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009, in New York City as previously scheduled. The presentation was scheduled to begin at 10:35 a.m. Eastern time. Recent Goodrich presentations at other investor conferences, including its company-hosted investor conference, are available at the Goodrich website (www.goodrich.com). Goodrich Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, is a global supplier of systems and services to aerospace, defense and homeland security markets. With one of the most strategically diversified portfolios of products in the industry, Goodrich serves a global customer base with significant worldwide manufacturing and service facilities. For more information visit http://www.goodrich.com. SOURCE Goodrich Corporation http://www.goodrich.com Copyright (C) 2009 PR Newswire. All rights reservedThis content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| Can Sarkozy and Brown kiss and make up? - New Statesman Posted: 10 Dec 2009 05:23 AM PST Will Sarkozy be forgiven for his assaults on 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism?  Can the entente cordiale be repaired? Photograph: Getty Images With Anglo-French relations at their lowest level since Jacques Chirac declared that Britain had the worst food in the world (after Finland), Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown have co-authored a piece in today's Wall Street Journal in an attempt to repair the entente cordiale. The latest quarrel began, you may remember, after Sarkozy launched a polemical assault on the "unconstrained Anglo-Saxon market model." With unrestrained glee, he declared that the appointment of Frenchman Michel Barnier as the EU's financial regulation chief, promised "victory" for the "European model".
It will stand as one of the ironies of history that the man who came to power promising to do for France what Thatcher did for Britain has transformed himself into one of the most vociferous critics of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. But like his Gaullist predecessors he has found the rhetorical appeal of the dirigiste tradition too heady to resist. Perhaps unexpectedly, today's article isn't the bland or incoherent work it might have been. The solid social democratic belief that the market is a good servant but a bad master underlines their appeal for a "new compact" between global banks and "the society they serve". And both are right to call for European states to introduce a one-off tax on bank bonuses. The pair will meet on the fringes of the latest EU summit with one diplomat commenting: "I think it'll be fine. In two years, you'll be wondering what the fuss was about." If you accept Harold Wilson's dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics' then two years is a rather long time for both sides to forgive and forget. Sarkozy and Brown would do well to begin with a new compact between themselves before turning to casino capitalism.
Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter Post your commentThis content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| Thursday's Stocks to Watch: Ciena - Yahoo Finance Posted: 10 Dec 2009 06:13 AM PST Among the companies whose shares are expected to see active trade in Thursday's session are Anadarko, Citi, Costco, Gildan, Lilly, Lululemon, Pall, Rockwell Automation and Smithfield. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) discovered oil at the Lucius exploration well in Keathley Canyon block 875. The company called the initial results "very encouraging." The Lucius discovery was drilled to a total depth of about 20,000 feet in approximately 7,100 feet of water. Anadarko operates the Lucius well with a 50% working interest. Co-owners in the discovery include Plains Exploration & Production Co. (PXE) with a 33.3% working interest and Mariner Energy Inc. (ME) with a 16.7% working interest. Cadbury (CBY): Hershey Co. (HSY), the Hershey, Pa., chocolate maker, and its controlling trust are leaning toward making a bid for the UK chocolate producer but haven't finally decided, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal. A key concern for Hershey and its trust is that taking on debt to launch the bid could prompt a downgrade in its credit rating, which is currently investment-grade with a negative outlook at Standard & Poor's, the Journal reported. Kraft Foods (KFT), the Northfield, Ill., foods-production giant, has proposed to pay 300 pence plus 0.2589 share for each share of Cadbury. Ciena (CIEN) reported a fourth-quarter loss Thursday of $26.7 million, or 29 cents a share, compared to a $25.4 million, or 28 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Revenue declined to $176.3 million $179.7 million. On an adjusted level, the Linthicum, Md., network company had a loss of 12 cents a share in the most recent quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet Research were looking for a loss of 7 cents a share. For the first quarter, Ciena projects a 5% sequential increase in fourth-quarter revenue. Citigroup (C) rose in pre-open trading on Thursday ahead of an expected repayment of the U.S. government's investment under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Citi plans to raise $20 billion by selling new equity to help the giant bank repay the $45 billion it got from the government, CNBC reported late Wednesday, adding that the deal could come as early as Thursday. "This would be a large offering, but Citi is one of the least owned banks by institutional investors," analysts at J.P. Morgan Chase told clients in Thursday research note. "This should support demand for the offering," they concluded. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST), the Issaquah, Wash., warehouse retailer, reported fiscal first-quarter net income was flat - meeting analysts' estimates -- on 5.5% higher revenue and 3% higher same-store sales. El Paso Corp. (EP) expects 2010 adjusted net income of 75 cents to 95 cents a share. Wall Street analysts expect earnings of 88 cents a share, according to a survey by FactSet Research. France Telecom (FTE) was downgraded on Thursday to underperform from neutral at Exane BNP Paribas, which said 2009 has been a poor year for the the stock. "Looking into 2010, we do not foresee a better trend," the broker said. "We expect further downgrades to earnings estimates for the short term and for the medium to long term due to the risks in France in the fixed-line segment and mobile." Gildan Activewear (GIL) fourth-quarter net income totaled $42.4 million, or 35 cents a share, from $21.8 million, or 18 cents a share, a year ago. Last year's result was hit by a $25.3 million tax charge. Sales declined to $301.7 million, from $324.7 million a year ago, hit by a decrease in activewear and underwear sales due to lower prices and volumes. Weaker economic conditions, as well as discount and currency changes, hit sales, the firm noted. Consolidated net sales in fiscal 2010 are projected to be slightly more than $1.2 billion, up approximately 17% from fiscal 2009. Eli Lilly (LLY) expects to earn $4.65 to $4.85 per share in 2010, excluding the potential impact of healthcare reform in the U.S. It expects low-to mid-single digit total revenue growth on a pro-forma basis and mid-single digit revenue growth on a reported basis. It expects volume-driven revenue growth in the high-single-digits percent, driven primarily by Alimta, Cymbalta, Humalog, Cialis, Effient and the exenatide franchise and anticipates that gross margin as a percent of revenue will be flat to declining. Lululemon Athletica (LULU) reported a third-quarter profit of $14.1 million, or 20 cents a share, up from $8.8 million, or 13 cents, in the year-ago period. Sales jumped 29.7% to $112.9 million as comparable store sales gained 10%. Analysts polled by FactSet Research were looking for profit of 19 cents a share on revenue of $111.2 million. Looking ahead, the athletic apparel retailer expects to report a fourth-quarter profit of 26 cents to 28 cents a share. Wall Street forecast 27 cents a share. Pall Corp. (PLL) reported fiscal first-quarter net income was $67 million, or 56 cents a share, compared with $43.1 million, or 36 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Sales fell 5.4% to $547 million. Pall provided an annual forecast, calling for earnings of $2.02 to $2.19 a share, excluding items. Rockwell Automation Inc. (ROK) affirmed its guidance for fiscal 2010 earnings of $1.25 to $1.75 a share on revenue of $4.1 billion to $4.4 billion. Analysts polled by FactSet had forecast earnings of $1.71 a share for the fiscal year through September 2010, with sales of $4.33 billion. Siemens AG (SI) said Christoph Kollatz, chief executive of Siemens IT Solutions and Services, is stepping down. Christian Oecking, head of the global operations business unit, will serve as acting head of the division. "Siemens announced last week that the cross-sector business would be more closely oriented to the needs of the IT market in view of unrelenting pricing and competitive pressure in the IT business," it said. As a result, it's preparing to turn the business into a legally independent unit on July 1. Kollatz said his resignation "paves the way for the change. Smithfield Foods Inc. (SFD) swung to a fiscal second-quarter loss of $26.4 million, or 17 cents a share, from a profit of $1.7 million, or 1 cent, a year earlier. Sales in the quarter ended Nov. 1 fell to $2.69 billion from $3.15 billion. Analysts, on average, estimated the fresh pork and packaged meat processor to lose 38 cents a share in the quarter on sales of $2.75 billion. Sunoco Inc.'s (SUN) ratings outlook was lowered to negative from stable by Fitch because of weak financial performance. Fitch has BBB long-term issuer default, senior unsecured credit facility, and senior unsecured debt ratings on Sunoco. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Add Images to any RSS Feed To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
.gif "OBAT KUAT")
.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment