Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
" For us to unilaterally invade another sovereign country, we need to feel and demonstrate such a country poses a clear imminent present danger to us."
Zeev, that statement is demonstrably baseless.
First, the US did not "unilaterally" invade Iraq. An
international coalition of countries removed Saddam from
power for his longstanding, numerous & egregious material
violations of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement - UN
Resolution # 687.
Every single UN Resolution against Saddam was irrevocably
tied to # 687 & # 688. And they require far more than asking
Saddam give up only his "stockpiles" of WMD's. Saddam was
required to give up every aspect of his WMD Programs. He was
required to give up & renounce every aspect of terrorism in
any form. Saddam was required to stop every aspect of his
horrific crimes against humanity. And all of this was to be
verified by UN Inspectors.
FWIW, George Bush's major speeches about Iraq clearly
enumerate each of these requirements, despite the active &
intentionally misleading assertions from the DNC, the Kerry
Campaign & the MSM.
UN Resolution # 1441 gave Saddam one "last chance" to
immediately & fully comply or face "serious consequences".
Considering that this was post 9/11 & we were now in a global
War on Terror, it could not be clearer that this was a Zero
Tolerance Resolution.
And this was no "Rush to War" either. Saddam already defied
the UN for more than 12 years & Bush gave him more than 5
additional months. Saddam spent that whole time committing
more material violations.
We now know that the UN was so utterly corrupt that they
never would have taken action against Saddam. Member states
on the Security Council were taking huge bribes from Saddam.
They were selling illegal weapons & systems well above market
with the clear understanding that they protect Saddam from
the US & the UN. There were many other countries from the UN
also feeding at the same trough.
Funny how folks still firmly believe that it's still all
Bush's & Blair's fault things turned out this way. They
weren't corrupt. They didn't take bribes or illegally sell
weapons to Saddam. They didn't lie or mislead. They did
however, appropriately place national security first among
their priorities. They & the rest of the Coalition of the
Willing clearly understood the unique threat Saddam posed &
acted properly.
I realize that those who adamantly oppose George Bush need to
obfuscate the issues. The use of the catch phrase, "unilateral
invasion" makes for a great sound bite, yet has no
relationship to the legal implementation of the Cease Fire
Agreement.
"because I KNOW that saddam had no WMD nor any desire to have them, and was following all UN and USA proscriptions"
Hello Amazing Kreskin! The Duelfer Report humbly declines to
agree with you...........
Duelfer Report: Saddam Planned to Restart WMD Programs
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20611962
The focus is on the Duelfer report, it's important to remember that the U.N. inspection regime was about providing positive evidence of Saddam's disarmament.
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20620056
Report That Nails Saddam
The New York Times
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20622263
But these headlines conceal the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer. For the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. . . .
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20623841
"Once bribed they stay bribed"
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20623916
Duelfer Report: Saddam Bribed Jacques Chirac To Veto War
In yet another revelation that the French conspired to
undermine US and global security, the Duelfer report from the
Iraq Survey Group provides evidence that Saddam Hussein had
bribed the French to not just sit out the war but to actively
undermine any attempts to enforce the UNSC resolutions
against Iraq:
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20611925
Saddam paid off French leaders
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20616432
No one could read even a small portion of the report and conclude that "Iraq had no WMDs" is a fair summary of its contents. Here are just a few tidbits I noted:
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20615946
The release of the Duelfer report is actually bad news for Kerry
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20620010
Many Helped Iraq Evade U.N. Sanctions On Weapons
Washington Post
.......Trade with Russia was so brisk that Iraqi Embassy
officials smuggled military supplies on weekly charter
flights from Moscow to Baghdad, according to the former Iraqi
diplomat, who was not named in the report. The equipment
included radar jammers, night-vision goggles and small
missile components.....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20617965
JOHN KERRY'S 'ALLIES' — BOUGHT AND PAID FOR
It tells the tale of how Saddam Hussein, clinging to power,
enlisted top U.N. officials to help him bribe leaders of
those European nations so dear to John Kerry's heart into
ending tough economic sanctions against Iraq.
Whereupon Saddam planned to resume his decades-long quest for WMDs.
And he almost succeeded.
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20619904
A Familiar Name Among The Bribed
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20616347
More Important than WMDs
... is the reputation of the United Nations. It is in tatters...
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20611948
France: No Convictions Without Confessions
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20615972
Saddam Crazy Like A Fox
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20619450
Iraq Amnesia
The real "coalition of the bribed" was at the U.N.
The Wall Street Journal
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20619659
"obviously this is from a right wing hate group ,out to smear the kerry campaign"
I see. Your personal opinion stated as fact somehow discredits the messenger & the evidence. Why then has the MSM been completely silent on these documents?
"if and when released they will be called forgeries, like those pertaining to Niger"
From the article.....
October 04, 2004 - "Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com headquarters in Alexandria, Va."
If the MSM had been denied access to the documents, it would have already been widely reported. There are no such reports anywhere.
In fact, the MSM immediately expressed interest in reviewing the documents. Still complete silence from them.
If the MSM had reviewed them & had the slightest evidence the documents were fake, it would be Headline news which would also be used as evidence of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) to defraud the American public into Bush's "War for Oil". And bye the way, Bush/Rove are leaders of the VRWC, don't ya know?
I can still hear crickets chirping.
A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated"
Beldar blog
Saturday, September 25, 2004
My lawyer readers will immediately recognize this as an invitation to Kerry supporters to make a motion for partial summary judgment on the SwiftVets' claims.
This short paragraph from a New York Times article perfectly illustrates the liberal media's widespread characterization of the results to date of the SwiftVets' campaign (boldface added):
<<<<Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which drew national attention with advertisements making unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's military service, has less money and uses several strategies to stretch its dollars, said one of its leaders, John O'Neill.>>>>
To find a similar example from the blogosphere, one need look no farther than Andrew Sullivan's passing dismissal of the SwiftVets' campaign (boldface added):
<<<<As word spread, anti-Kerry forces sent in more money to the Swift Boat Veterans for truth website, allowing them to ramp up their ad efforts. And within a few days, the old media was forced to cover the claims extensively — even if much of their coverage amounted to a debunking.>>>>
As someone who's followed the SwiftVets' campaign closely — someone who's read Brinkley's Tour of Duty, O'Neill's Unfit for Command, and Kranish et al.'s John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography cover to cover, plus all of the mainstream media reports I could find on the internet and a goodly portion of what's appeared from both political sides of the blogosphere — I'm simply stunned to read these sorts of statements.
I can think of one major SwiftVets allegation on which they've arguably failed to offer more than circumstantial evidence — that Kerry "gamed the system" to get his medals. Kerry's stonewall — his refusal to sign Standard Form 180 and thereby release the documentation that should, if it exists, reveal still-hidden details like how he came to get his first Purple Heart — has been effective in keeping the SwiftVets from nailing down that point with direct evidence.
Yet the circumstantial case is powerful — Kerry's commanding officer at the time, Skip Hibbard, says he refused to approve that Purple Heart in December 1968, yet Kerry showed up with the medal anyway in March 1969 in some as-yet-unexplained fashion.
I can think of other SwiftVets allegations on which there is directly competing evidence that requires the public to draw conclusions. For example, does one credit Adm. Bill Schachte's account of his first-hand knowledge of how Kerry received the trivial wound that led to his first Purple Heart, or does one credit Zaldonis' and Runyan's claims that Schachte wasn't aboard the skimmer? Which of the eyewitnesses does one choose to find credible on the question of whether Kerry was or wasn't under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann from the Bay Hap River?
Other allegations require an exercise of subjective judgment. For example, was Kerry's pursuit and dispatching of a single VC soldier sufficiently valorous to merit his Silver Star?
But on none of these issues I've just listed have the SwiftVets' allegations been "debunked" or proven "unsubstantiated." Andrew Sullivan or the NYT repeating over and over that they have been simply don't make them so. To employ the legal jargon of summary judgment proceedings, a rational factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the SwiftVets have produced on each of these allegations that, indeed, they're true. A trial judge who dismissed these allegations outright, without letting the factfinder (typically a jury) consider them, would certainly be reversed on appeal and told to let the jury do its work. They haven't, in lay terms, been "debunked" — but rather, they're fiercely disputed by competent evidence (some of it eyewitness, some of it circumstantial, some of it documentary).
Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers — you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there — who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan:
Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?
Some ground rules for this challenge that I think are not unreasonable:
By "specific," I mean to exclude sweeping conclusions like "John Kerry wasn't as big a hero as he's made out." By material, I mean to exclude trivia like "the VC soldier John Kerry shot was in a uniform instead of in a loincloth." And I ask that if you're to make an honest effort to meet my challenge, you provide quotes and links, both to the SwiftVets' allegations and to the evidence that you offer to show debunking or lack of substantiation.
If you rely on documents — for example, Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation as support for the proposition that he and Kerry were under enemy fire after PCF 3 was struck by a mine — then to reach "debunked" status, you ought to show that there are no contrary eyewitness accounts to those documents, nor other contrary documents. Otherwise, you've merely established that a dispute exists — what lawyers would call a "genuine issue of fact" that must be resolved by a judgment call as to which side has the greater weight of the credible evidence.
Saying your side has the greater weight of the evidence isn't "debunking" or showing that something is "unsubstantiated," it's saying that your side ought to ultimately prevail on the factual dispute, and that's a very different kettle of fish. To use a converse example by way of illustration: I would argue that the "Christmas in Cambodia" story repeatedly told by Sen. Kerry has indeed been thoroughly debunked and proved unsubstantiated — that is, there simply is no credible evidence from which any rational factfinder could conclude that Kerry's claim to have spent Christmas 1968 several miles inside Cambodia, under friendly fire and on a secret mission, was truthful.
I of course reserve the right to offer a rebuttal, as will, I'm sure, my like-minded readers. But I'm genuinely curious about this, and will try to summarize the results of this challenge fairly in a new post sometime early next week.
Posted by Beldar
http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/09/a_challenge_to_.html
Sorry Zeev, the mainstream media (MSM) is liberally biased. The evidence supporting this is overwhelming. Lately, they barely pretend to be "objective". I'm sorry, but again your bias is showing.
The anecdotal examples you offered are actually good examples of liberal MSM bias. The MSM's initial reluctance to cover the allegations in the examples you cited, then later, when the MSM began to cover them, their distorted slant are all well documented (with Clinton, sex sells. When they finally ran with it big time, the MSM still slanted it hard).
Here's one prime example - You couldn't be more wrong about the Swift Boat coverage.
Bottom line, if you switch the allegations against the candidates (Imagine that Kerry was alleged to be "AWOL" in the National Guard (NG). Imagine Bush fighting Swift Boat Vet allegations.); I guarantee that the MSM would have dominated the news from day one citing the Swifties clear unequivocal evidence against Bush. Detailed interviews with John O'Neill & the Swift Vets would have been all over the airwaves & in the headlines slamming Bush with the facts. At the same time, you would have seen the MSM ignore, dismiss & openly denounce the "AWOL" allegations about Kerry's NG service. The MSM would triumphantly proclaim their "journalistic standards" would not allow them to report on the smear job against Kerry because no credible evidence exists to support the allegations made by the Vast Right Wing Smear Machine.
Instead, in the real world, on almost no evidence the MSM ran thousands of negative stories about Bush in the NG. Their main sources of info came from an unbalanced, rabid, Bush hating liberal (and known liar), Michael Moore, the DNC & "fake but accurate" documents. The MSM actively searched for witnesses & documentation that would harm Bush. Simultaneously, the MSM intentionally ignored credible witnesses & documentation that clearly established Bush served honorably. They misled & distorted facts with impunity to portray Bush as negatively as possible. And Dan Rather's forged documents debacle was absolute proof of how over the top MSM's liberal bias has become.
Meanwhile, the Swifties presented irrefutable, factual evidence to support their allegations. The MSM virtually ignored the Swift Boat Vets from May (Press Conference) until two weeks after their TV ads were killing Kerry in September. When the MSM did cover the Swifties, they have slandered & smeared the Swifties maliciously. Almost every story openly ridicules them & the MSM blatantly distorts the truth in almost every report.
Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" is now irrefutably documented as a huge lie that Kerry used for political purposes time & time again (50 times on the record). Team Kerry even admitted he was not there then. And the Swifties used Kerry's own words to prove irrefutably Kerry had repeatedly perpetrated this horrific lie purely for political gain. Why has the MSM covered up this earth shattering story?
The Swifties proved that two of three Purple Hearts were not justified. They used Kerry's own words, sworn testimony & documentary evidence, to establish factually those medals were not legitimately earned.
The Swifties let the public know that Kerry met with Communist leaders from North Vietnam twice while we were at war with them. Again Kerry's own words added to the clear evidence that this is true.
They documented that Kerry's lies about war crimes before the Senate were used by the Communists against POW's to threaten & terrorize them.
Don't tell me Kerry didn't give aid & comfort to the enemy or that Kerry's war crimes lies did not cause our POW's to suffer more.
The Swifties brought attention to Kerry's involvement in a plot to assassinate US Senators, something that the MSM is loathe to ever mention objectively. Despite repeated Kerry denials, he only admitted he was present when FBI documents proved Kerry was lying.
Why has the MSM covered up, distorted or downplayed all of these earth shattering stories from the Swift Boat Vets? It's not for lack of credible evidence. That's a fact.
There's so much more. I defy anyone to google news reports on the Swifties. Here's what you will find. You won't see the stories I mentioned above objectively covered. The few articles where the MSM actually mentions them, you will see the Swifties slandered & smeared consistently. The accurate allegations mentioned above are either completely ignored, blatantly distorted or dismissed out of hand. And the MSM fails to provide any credible evidence to support their baseless assertions that the Swifties have been discredited.
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
October 04, 2004
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
The source of the documents
A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.
There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.
Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.
Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."
Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."
The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.
"This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.
The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."
Presidential campaign focused on Iraq
The presidential campaign is currently dominated by debate over whether Saddam procured weapons of mass destruction and/or whether his government sponsored terrorism aimed at Americans before the U.S. invaded Iraq last year. Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry has repeatedly rejected that possibility and criticized President Bush for needlessly invading Iraq.
"[Bush's] two main rationales - weapons of mass destruction and the al Qaeda/September 11 (2001) connection - have been proved false ... by the president's own weapons inspectors ... and by the 9/11 Commission," Kerry told an audience at New York University on Sept. 20.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of the 9/11 intelligence failures also could not produce any definitive links between Saddam's government and 9/11. And United Nations as well as U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq have been unable to find the biological and chemical weapons Saddam was suspected of possessing.
But the documents obtained by CNSNews.com shed new light on the controversy.
They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)
The documents show that Iraqi intelligence received the mustard gas and anthrax from "Saddam's company," which Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, "a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication."
"Sa'ad's general company" is listed on the Iraqi documents as the supplier of the sterilization and decontamination equipment that accompanied the anthrax vials. Tefft believes this is a reference to the Salah Al-Din State Establishment, also involved in missile construction. (See Saddam's Possession of Anthrax)
The Jaber Ibn Hayan General Company is listed as the supplier of the safety equipment that accompanied the mustard gas order. Tefft described the company as "a 'turn-key' project built by Romania, designed to produce protective CW (conventional warfare) and BW (biological warfare) equipment (gas masks and protective clothing)."
"Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended," the senior government official and source of the documents said. "This should cause us to redouble our efforts to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs."
'Hunt the Americans'
The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."
On Oct. 3, 1993, less than nine months after that Iraqi memo was written, American soldiers were ambushed in Mogadishu, Somalia by forces loyal to Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden. Eighteen Americans were killed and 84 wounded during a 17-hour firefight that followed the ambush in which Aidid's followers used civilians as decoys. (See Saddam's Connections to al Qaeda)
An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. currently is offering rewards of up to $25 million for each man's capture.
The documents describe Al-Jehad wa'l Tajdeed as "a secret Palestinian organization" founded after the first Persian Gulf War that "believes in armed struggle against U.S. and western interests." The leaders of the group, according to the Iraqi memo, were stationed in Jordan in 1993, and when one of those leaders visited Iraq in November 1992, he "showed the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests at any time." (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
Tefft believes the Tajdeed group likely included al-Zarqawi, whom Teft described as "our current terrorist nemesis" in Iraq, "a Palestinian on a Jordanian passport who was with al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan prior to this period (1993)."
Tajdeed, which means Islamic Renewal, currently "has a website that posts Zarqawi's speeches, messages, claims of assassinations and beheading videos," Tefft told CNSNews.com. "The apparent linkages are too close to be accidental" and might "be one of the first operational contacts between an al Qaeda group and Iraq," he added.
Tefft said the documents, all of which the Iraqi Intelligence Service labeled "Top secret, personal and urgent" show several links between Saddam's government and terror groups dedicated not only to targeting America but also U.S. allies like Egypt and Israel.
The same 11-page memo refers to the "re-opening of the relationship" with Al-Jehad al-Islamy, which is described as "the most violent in Egypt," responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. The documents go on to describe a Dec. 14, 1990 meeting between Iraqi intelligence officials and a representative of Al-Jehad al-Islamy, that ended in an agreement "to move against [the] Egyptian regime by doing martyr operations on conditions that we should secure the finance, training and equipments." (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
Al-Zawahiri was one of the leaders of Jehad al-Islamy, which is also known as the Egyptian Islamic Group, and participated in the assassination of Sadat, Tefft said. "Iraq's contact with the Egyptian Islamic Group is another operational contact between Iraq and al Qaeda," he added.
One of the Asian groups listed on the Iraqi intelligence memo is J.U.I., also known as the Islamic Clerks Society. The group is currently led by Mawlana Fadhel al-Rahman, whom Tefft said is "an al Qaeda member and co-signed Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious ruling) to kill Americans." The Iraqi memo from 1993 states that J.U.I.'s secretary general "has a good relationship with our system since 1981 and he is ready for any mission." Tefft said the memo shows "another direct Iraq link to an al Qaeda group."
Iraq had also maintained a relationship with the Afghani Islamist party since 1989, according to the memo. The "relationship was improved and became directly between the leader, Hekmatyar and Iraq," it states, referring to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani warlord who fought against the Soviet Union and current al Qaeda ally, according to Tefft.
Last year, American authorities in Afghanistan ranked Hekmatyar third on their most wanted list, behind only bin Laden and former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Hekmatyar represents "another Iraqi link to an al Qaeda group," Tefft said. (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
The Iraqi intelligence documents also refer to terrorist groups previously believed to have had links with Saddam Hussein. They include the Palestine Liberation Front, a group dedicated to attacking Israel, and according to the Iraqi memo, one with "an office in Baghdad."
The Abu Nidal group, suspected by the CIA of having acted as surrogates for Iraqi terrorist attacks, is also mentioned.
"The movement believes in political violence and assassinations," the 1993 Iraqi memo states in reference to the Abu Nidal organization. "We have relationships with them since 1973. Currently, they have a representative in the country. Monthly helps are given to them -- 20 thousand dinars - in addition to other supports," the memo explains. (See Saddam's Connections to Palestinian Terror Groups)
Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries are listed on the papers.
Many are described as having "finished the course at M14," a reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having "participated in Umm El-Ma'arek," the Iraqi response to the U.S. invasion in 1991. The author of the list notes that approximately half of the individuals "all got trained inside the 'martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate."
The former UNSCOM weapons inspector who was asked to analyze the documents believes it's clear that the Iraqis "were training people there in assassination and suicide bombing techniques ... including non-Iraqis."
Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence
The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents have not been made public before now is that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated.
"It is unlikely they even know this exists," the source added.
The government official also explained that the motivation for leaking the documents, "is strictly national security and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's attention on facts and away from political posturing.
"This is too important to let it get caught up in the political process," the source told CNSNews.com.
To protect against the Iraqi intelligence documents being altered or misrepresented elsewhere on the Internet, CNSNews.com has decided to publish only the first of the 42 pages in Arabic, along with the English translation. Portions of some of the other memos in translated form are also being published to accompany this report. Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com headquarters in Alexandria, Va.
Zeev, you need to check your bias......
"Both terrorists and tyrant (including Saddam, Nasser Bashir etc.) annouce quite ahead of time their intentions. So much that on August 6 2001, a month before the 9/11 attack, the president had on his desk a memo announcing El Quaida's intentions to attack major centers wih planes. He did absolutely nothing...."
The August 6th "memo" you cite contained non-specific threats. The memo was "historical" in nature, not an assessment of new, "imminent", &/or specific threats. And the memo clearly states that the CIA had 70 full-field investigations already in place investigating each of these non-specific threats......
....Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.....
....Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."
Graham's comments contradicted combative statements made recently by the Democratic congressional leadership, and confirmed White House assertions that the only specific threats of al Qaeda hijackings known to the President before September 11 came from a memo dating back to the Clinton Administration.....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20015068
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20014897
.....Two days after Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission, the New York Times announced in the lead of a front-page, above-the-fold story that Bush was warned in an August 6 briefing “that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes.” The article then went so far as to suggest that Condi lied in her testimony when referring to the document as “historical.”
Never mind that the document was “historical”—a fact revealed when the White House released the formerly top-secret briefing hours after the Times story ran—or that even the most rabid Democrat couldn’t have contorted the contents of it in any manner more damning to Bush than the paper itself did......
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20068989
....Mr. Kerrey and his fellow partisans made much of an August 6, 2001, Presidential briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States." But Ms. Rice properly observed that there is no obvious response to non-specific warnings that "something very big may happen." ....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20007109
"Well for one I don't believe that the Post story was based on...."
What you believe & reality appear to be at odds.......
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002674.php
I find it hard to believe that the liberal NY Times had access to more factual, credible evidence than those who prepared the Senate Intelligence Report. Who do you think did a more objective report? Who do you think had access to more classified intelligence?
That the liberal NY Times essentially repeated an old Washington Post story a month prior to a Presidential election is not new news. It's the liberal MSM working to unseat Bush IMO.
Israel was never in violation of a cease fire agreement. Iraq violated the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement & all 17 UN Resolutions that followed. Every one of those Resolutions were directly tied to the Cease Fire Agreement (#687).
I'm not aware of any serious UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel, as I'm confident the US would veto them. There are other non-binding & non-Security Council Resolutions that don't carry much weight, nor do any of them threaten Israel with use of force for non-compliance. And I'm sure that we both agree that most UN Resolutions against Israel are baseless & due to anti-Semitism.
Israel is not the moral equivalent of Iraq under Saddam. Only the most disingenuous would try to make that claim in order to justify war against Israel.
"For us to unilaterally invade another sovereign country, we need to feel and demonstrate such a country poses a clear imminent present danger to us."
The US did not unilaterally invade Iraq. That is a baseless DNC Talking Point. As for "Imminent", the time to make that argument was prior to the war. Bush made it clear to wait until the threat from Saddam was "imminent" was wrong. Most Americans, post 9/11 agreed with that assessment, as did Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force. The liberal left falsely claimed that Bush said the threat was "imminent", rather than discuss why it was wrong to wait until it was too late (when the threat would be "imminent")......
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4197887
"A bunch of nations in the UN gang up on someone they do not like, pass a resolution, and anyone that feels like it, whether or not under "Clear and Present danger" from such a nation, can invade such a violator of UN resolutions. Is that the world order we want to live under. Not just today, but for the next fifty years?"
You make a good point. However, post 9/11 has made how we approach rouge dictators & countries that harbor or support terrorism differently than any threat the world has faced. Also, the US will not let BS stand from petty despot regimes or Arab nations with designs to eliminate Israel. And regardless of the general opinion of the global community, the US is the world's policeman.
"The only valid question is was there a clear and present and imminent danger to the US from Hussein."
President Delivers "State of the Union"
January 28, 2003
...."Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.".....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
"So what is your take on Cheney and the aluminum tubes"
How is that story any different than a virtually identical
story run by the Washington Post more than a year ago?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002674.php
How does that story obviate any of the findings of the Senate
Intelligence Committee or the Butler Report?
....."you do not invade another sovereign country and by doing what we did,".....
Despite how the UN, leading Democratic politicians & a compliant, liberal mainstream media revised history; Violations of any of the 17 UN Resolutions opened the door to a resumption of hostilities from the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement. UN Resolution 687 was clear & enforcable. All 17 UN Resolutions were tied to Resolution 687.
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
Twelve years of utter defiance did not obviate Saddam of the consequences for violating the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement.
The world bent over backwards for Saddam. 9/11 changed the world & Bush simply did what was long overdue - Regime change that Clinton made US policy several years earlier.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
I sign H.R. 4655 into law (The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
October 31, 1998
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
Beldar blog
Saturday, September 25, 2004
A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated"
My lawyer readers will immediately recognize this as an invitation to Kerry supporters to make a motion for partial summary judgment on the SwiftVets' claims.
This short paragraph from a New York Times article perfectly illustrates the liberal media's widespread characterization of the results to date of the SwiftVets' campaign (boldface added):
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which drew national attention with advertisements making unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's military service, has less money and uses several strategies to stretch its dollars, said one of its leaders, John O'Neill.
To find a similar example from the blogosphere, one need look no farther than Andrew Sullivan's passing dismissal of the SwiftVets' campaign (boldface added):
As word spread, anti-Kerry forces sent in more money to the Swift Boat Veterans for truth website, allowing them to ramp up their ad efforts. And within a few days, the old media was forced to cover the claims extensively — even if much of their coverage amounted to a debunking.
As someone who's followed the SwiftVets' campaign closely — someone who's read Brinkley's Tour of Duty, O'Neill's Unfit for Command, and Kranish et al.'s John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography cover to cover, plus all of the mainstream media reports I could find on the internet and a goodly portion of what's appeared from both political sides of the blogosphere — I'm simply stunned to read these sorts of statements.
I can think of one major SwiftVets allegation on which they've arguably failed to offer more than circumstantial evidence — that Kerry "gamed the system" to get his medals. Kerry's stonewall — his refusal to sign Standard Form 180 and thereby release the documentation that should, if it exists, reveal still-hidden details like how he came to get his first Purple Heart — has been effective in keeping the SwiftVets from nailing down that point with direct evidence.
Yet the circumstantial case is powerful — Kerry's commanding officer at the time, Skip Hibbard, says he refused to approve that Purple Heart in December 1968, yet Kerry showed up with the medal anyway in March 1969 in some as-yet-unexplained fashion.
I can think of other SwiftVets allegations on which there is directly competing evidence that requires the public to draw conclusions. For example, does one credit Adm. Bill Schachte's account of his first-hand knowledge of how Kerry received the trivial wound that led to his first Purple Heart, or does one credit Zaldonis' and Runyan's claims that Schachte wasn't aboard the skimmer? Which of the eyewitnesses does one choose to find credible on the question of whether Kerry was or wasn't under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann from the Bay Hap River?
Other allegations require an exercise of subjective judgment. For example, was Kerry's pursuit and dispatching of a single VC soldier sufficiently valorous to merit his Silver Star?
But on none of these issues I've just listed have the SwiftVets' allegations been "debunked" or proven "unsubstantiated." Andrew Sullivan or the NYT repeating over and over that they have been simply don't make them so. To employ the legal jargon of summary judgment proceedings, a rational factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the SwiftVets have produced on each of these allegations that, indeed, they're true. A trial judge who dismissed these allegations outright, without letting the factfinder (typically a jury) consider them, would certainly be reversed on appeal and told to let the jury do its work. They haven't, in lay terms, been "debunked" — but rather, they're fiercely disputed by competent evidence (some of it eyewitness, some of it circumstantial, some of it documentary).
Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers — you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there — who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan:
Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?
Some ground rules for this challenge that I think are not unreasonable:
By "specific," I mean to exclude sweeping conclusions like "John Kerry wasn't as big a hero as he's made out." By material, I mean to exclude trivia like "the VC soldier John Kerry shot was in a uniform instead of in a loincloth." And I ask that if you're to make an honest effort to meet my challenge, you provide quotes and links, both to the SwiftVets' allegations and to the evidence that you offer to show debunking or lack of substantiation.
If you rely on documents — for example, Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation as support for the proposition that he and Kerry were under enemy fire after PCF 3 was struck by a mine — then to reach "debunked" status, you ought to show that there are no contrary eyewitness accounts to those documents, nor other contrary documents. Otherwise, you've merely established that a dispute exists — what lawyers would call a "genuine issue of fact" that must be resolved by a judgment call as to which side has the greater weight of the credible evidence.
Saying your side has the greater weight of the evidence isn't "debunking" or showing that something is "unsubstantiated," it's saying that your side ought to ultimately prevail on the factual dispute, and that's a very different kettle of fish. To use a converse example by way of illustration: I would argue that the "Christmas in Cambodia" story repeatedly told by Sen. Kerry has indeed been thoroughly debunked and proved unsubstantiated — that is, there simply is no credible evidence from which any rational factfinder could conclude that Kerry's claim to have spent Christmas 1968 several miles inside Cambodia, under friendly fire and on a secret mission, was truthful.
I of course reserve the right to offer a rebuttal, as will, I'm sure, my like-minded readers. But I'm genuinely curious about this, and will try to summarize the results of this challenge fairly in a new post sometime early next week.
Posted by Beldar
http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/09/a_challenge_to_.html
Yahoo! Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2003 Financial Results
Wednesday January 14, 4:31 pm ET
Company Posts Full Year 2003 Revenues of $1,625 Million, Operating Income of $296 Million, Operating Income Before Depreciation and Amortization of $455 Million
SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 14, 2004-- Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - News) today reported results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2003.
"Yahoo!'s fourth quarter performance completes a year of phenomenal growth for our company, and represents the most successful quarter in the history of Yahoo!. As we made across-the-board improvements in our business, we were rewarded with deeper and more profitable relationships with our customers," said Terry Semel, chairman and chief executive officer, Yahoo!. "We believe the key to Yahoo!'s long-term growth continues to be building and improving products and services essential to our customers' lives. Our focus on expanding the world's largest and most diverse online marketing platform and improving the best user experience on the web is expected to be the catalyst for the future success of Yahoo!." ........
<<See more at link>>
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040114/145726_1.html
16:24 ET Intel beats, guides in line (INTC) 33.39 -0.20: Reports Q4 (Dec) earnings of $0.33 per diluted share, including a $0.06 charge that analysts were also including in their estimates. However, the $0.33 includes a tax benefit that was $0.06 greater than anticipated. Reuters Research consensus is $0.25. In touch with Reuters for comparable actual. Revenues rose 22.1% year/year to $8.74 bln vs the $8.65 bln consensus. Revenue in the first quarter is expected to be between $7.9 bln and $8.5 bln, consensus $8.23 bln.
North American Semiconductor Equipment Industry Posts September 2003 Book-to-Bill Ratio of 0.95
SAN JOSE, Calif., October 20, 2003 -- North American-based manufacturers of semiconductor equipment posted $760.5 million in orders in September 2003 (three-month average basis) and a book-to-bill ratio of 0.95, according to the September 2003 Express Report published today by SEMI. A book-to-bill of 0.95 means that $95 worth of new orders were received for every $100 of product billed for the month.
The three-month average of worldwide bookings in September 2003 was $760.5 million. The bookings figure is four percent above the revised August 2003 level of $732 million and 8.5 percent below the $832 million in orders posted in September 2002.
The three-month average of worldwide billings in September 2003 was $803.5 million. The billings figure is one percent above the revised August 2003 level of $792 million and 23 percent below the September 2002 billings level of $1.04 billion.
"September continues the conservative spending trends we've seen in 2003, especially in the front end equipment sector," said Dan Tracy, SEMI director of industry research. "Positive economic signs and rising fab capacity utilization levels, coupled with current cautious investments, points towards higher spending growth in 2004."
The SEMI book-to-bill is a ratio of three-month moving average bookings to three-month moving average billings for the North American semiconductor equipment industry. Billings and bookings figures are in millions of U.S. dollars.
http://www.semi.org/web/wpress.nsf/33fa5c225257afa5882565e3006d9c77/8c7c375002b6443588256dc50076d532...
16:13 ET j2 Global beats by $0.02, guides Q4 & Y03 below consensus (JCOM) 43.99 -0.41: Reports Q3 (Sep) earnings of $0.28 per diluted share, $0.02 better than the Reuters Research consensus of $0.26; revenues rose 51.2% year/year to $18.9 mln vs the $18.8 mln consensus. Co also guides, sees Q4 EPS of $0.31, vs the R.R. consensus of $0.34, and revenues of $20.3 mln vs an estimate of $20.9 mln; co also guides Y03, sees EPS of $1.03, vs the R.R. consensus of $1.06, and revenues of $71.4 mln vs an estimate of $74.2 mln.
Equity P/C = .357 FWIW
I have a feeling, albeit nothing more than
feelings, you may be right <gg>.
14:15 ET Hearing spike in Lucent due to chatter that co will win a multi-bln dollar contract 2.25 +0.05: -- Update --
Is it safe to assume that the USA is also "flat" then?
Equity P/C now @ .436 FWIW
http://www.cboe.com/MktData/default.asp
I realize it's options expiry, but isn't the equity P/C ratio a bit stretched here @ .455?
http://www.cboe.com/MktData/default.asp
So far the US Gov't & all major media outlets reporting there
is no link to terrorism.
NAZ futures down -10.00. @ 1235.50
S&P futures down -7.80 @ 979.9
DELL @ $30.75
QQQ's back down to $30.69
SPY @ $98.69
DELL @ $30.76
Major power outage hits New York, other large cities
Thursday, August 14, 2003 Posted: 4:44 PM EDT (2044 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A major power outage simultaneously struck several large cities in the United States and Canada late Thursday afternoon.
Cities affected include New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Toronto, Ontario; and Ottawa, Ontario. The power outage occurred shortly after 4 p.m.
Much of Midtown Manhattan and Wall Street were shut down, including all area airports and the Long Island Railroad. The airports were operating on back-up power and operations were reported to be normal, officials said.
The New York City Police Department said they were trying to determine what happened. A Con Edison transformer on East 14th Street in Manhattan was afire, CNN learned.
Thousands of people could be seen leaving buildings and walking into the streets. New York subways were reported stopped and people were trapped in the cars.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/14/power.outage/
CNBC scrolling ticker has
QQQ @ ANYWHERE BETWEEN $30.49 & $30.90
SPY @ BETWEEN $98.35 & $99.00
DELL @ - $30.69
QQQ now up to $30.60
Don't panic - it's a big grid - that fire could have caused
the whole problem - no one on TV seems paniced or talking
terrorism, etc.
Fire reported at a Con Edison plant in NYC per CNBC, but that
doesn't explain other outages....... outage called extensive
in north east US up into Canada & as far west as Cleveland &
Detriot...
Blackout also in Detroit, Toronto, Hartford, Albany, Cleveland
NYC & NJ - no reason given yet for power outage - per CNBC
Major power outage in parts of NYC & NJ per CNBC....
FWIW
14:55 ET U.S. captures alleged mastermind of Bali & Indonesia attacks -- MSNBC
The ramp may be on breaking news of a "major" Al Qaeda member
being captured..... just hitting the wires...... not Bin Laden
though....
Warnings must be good things these days...... AMAT slightly
missed consensus, then warns going forward..... & gets
upgraded the next day..... BRCD misses slightly on rev's, then
warns & it's within a nickle of it's closing price.... no
doubt tomorrows upgrades will drive it up <ggg>
Funny thing though..... expectations for this qtr were for
these big tech's to beat estimates & guide up while talking up
signs of increasing economic growth..... stocks were bid up from
March thru August on these expectations.
Things that make you say Hmmmmmmm......
17:10 ET Applied Materials comments on CY03 capex spending (AMAT) 18.45 +0.11: -- Update -- On call, AMAT says it look for CY03 (Dec) capex spending to be "flat to slightly above" CY02 levels, which assumes an uptick in the second half of the year.
16:59 ET Applied Materials warns for Q4 EPS (AMAT) 18.45 +0.11: -- Update -- On conference call, AMAT says it sees Q4 (Oct) EPS of $0.04-0.05 and revenues "flat to slightly up" from Q3's result of $1.09 bln... The Reuters Research consensus estimates are set at $0.06 and $1.21 bln... Management adds that it looks for Q4 orders to be up by approximately 10% from Q3's figure of $1.05 bln.
16:36 ET On call, Applied Materials says it expects a sequential rise in orders in Q4 (AMAT) 18.45 +0.11: -- Update --