A Jew called Ben-Ami Kadish was arrested in April, 2008 by the U.S Department of Justice and he was released on bail of $300,000 following a brief appearance in a federal court...
The reason for arresting this 84 year-old retired mechanical engineer who was born in Connecticut is spying for Israel!
The U.S. government found out that Kadish disclosed all secret documents including information about nuclear weapons, modified F-15 fighters and the Patriot missiles to Israel while working as a mechanical engineer at the United States Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center in Dover, New Jersey.
These things happened between the years 1979 and 1985 and Kadish was arrested regardless of his old age.
Even worse, the person who convinced Ben-Ami Kadish to spy for Israel turned out to be the same person who dealt with well-known Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, who is serving life in prison for spying for Israel.
Through the confidential information given to the U.S. in 2004, even though Israel admitted that the "Pollard" case which led to a serious crisis between two countries was not the only case and there were also a few espionage incidents between 1970s and 1980s, this issue is considered as a new "scandal"...
The development of the Israeli nuclear weapons program was enabled through the secret documents obtained from the U.S. by Jonathan Pollard. Rafi Eitan, a MOSSAD authority who assigned Jonathan Polard, and Israeli foreign ministry advisor Arye Mekel announced immediately that they did not know "Kadish".
Yet, all these things pointed out that Israel consummated its nuclear weapons program by means of an espionage network that was built up in its closest ally.
Besides, just one year after the capture of Jonathan Pollard in 1985, Mordechai Vanunu, who was employed as a nuclear technician at a Nuclear Research Center located in Dimona, revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the world. Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 years in prison and Vanunu was released from prison on condition that he would not leave the country and tell what he knew to the people or especially to the foreigners. In the U.S., there was a tough team rising against Israel.
A former well-known CIA and KGB(as both were under the guidance of zionism) agent Uri Avnery stated these:
My friend Afif Safieh, now the chief Palestine Liberation Organization representative in the US, argues that there are two Americas: the America which exterminated the Native Americans and enslaved the blacks, the America of Hiroshima and McCarthy, and the other America, the America of the Declaration of Independence, of Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt.
In these terms, George Bush belongs to the first. Obama, his opposite in almost every respect, represents the second.
One can arrive at Obama by a process of elimination. John McCain is a continuation of Bush. More attractive, probably more intelligent (which doesn't mean much). But he is more of the same. The same policy - a dangerous mix of intoxication with power and simple-mindedness. The same world of the Wild West myth, of Good Guys (Americans and their stooges) and Bad Guys (everybody else). A macho world of sham masculinity, where everything is seen through the sights of a gun.
McCain will go on with the wars, and may start new ones. His economic agenda is the same "swinish capitalism" (Shimon Peres' phrase), which has now brought disaster on the economy of the US, and the economy of all of us.
America needs a complete overhaul. Not just a wash, not just a wax job, not just a new coat of paint. It needs a new motor, a change of the entire leadership, a reappraisal of its position in the world, a change of values.
It must be asked: Is it good for Israel?
All three candidates have groveled at the feet of AIPAC. The fawning of all three before the Israeli leadership is disgusting. They all show a lack of integrity. But I know that they have no choice. That's how it is in the USA.
In spite of this, Obama succeeded in getting out one courageous sentence. Speaking before a mainly Jewish audience in Cleveland, he said: "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."
I hope that the American Barack (blessed, in Arabic), if elected, will not turn into a replica of the Israeli Barak (lightning, in Hebrew).
Real friendship means: when you see that your friend is drunk, you don't encourage him to drive. You offer to take him home. I am longing for an American president who will have the courage and the honesty to tell our leaders: Dear friends, you are drunk with power! You are speeding along a highway that leads to an abyss!
Yes Palestinian Afif Safieh has noticed a fact, but interpreted it wrong. It is true, there are two Americas: one is under the guidance of Zionist Jewish Lobbies and the other is under the guidance of groups who has been trying to protect the benefits of America and get rid of Zionism. And these two groups have been striving to influence the masses.
What will happen in October?
Aydoğan Vatandaş is summarizing:
Not long ago did I have a dinner with a friend from the USA Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I happened to get some interesting points.
According to this, the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and his team are in a great effort to see the USA attack Syria and Iran in October 2008. The most important reason for this attack will be based on ensuring the security of Israel.
However, there were remarks in the Washington Post that there was a group in the U.S. Army standing out against this effort.
There will be presidency elections in November.
American people, in this case, will probably vote for McCain- a republican of military origin rather than Obama, who tends to pursue a passive policy on the Middle East.
American people will be conditioned to accept that "a woman" can not deal with problems of this kind if Hillary Clinton, not Obama, rises as a rival against McCain.
That means McCain has a higher chance in both cases of attaining the USA presidency.
Pay attention to October!
Therefore, Turkish domestic policy may shape up on the basis of the calculations of the USA on Syria and Iran.
Because, the USA wants to see Turkey as an ally in such a situation.
By the way, Turkey has made all its calculations on the possibility that the Democrats win.
What if the Republicans, that is McCain, win the election? This is certainly not a slight chance.
No matter who wins, the USA will try to find out the ways of not withdrawing but staying in Iraq.
Five years ago, Clinton was fulminating at Bush!
The former President of the USA, Clinton, was railing against present President Bush that "We cannot kill every opponent. We cannot invade all enemy countries."
The former President of the USA was sharply criticizing the present President Bush for his foreign policy. He stated that America would not exterminate all opponent powers or invade all enemy countries.
Clinton emphasized that the USA, sooner or later, had to find a way to cooperate with most of the world and he mentioned the message of Bush administration after 11 September "Everyone in the world should be with us, otherwise go to the hell"
Explaining that the USA overreacted to France and Germany that objected to the military operation in Iraq, Clinton expressed that the Bush Administration was having difficulties in keeping balance between the national issues and foreign policy.
Why was Kissinger confused?
"When Henry Kissinger opines in an op-ed in the Washington Post, it behooves us all to pay attention. There is a message there. Kissinger has always presented himself as the supreme "realist" proponent on U.S. imperial policy. But he has also always taken care not to distance himself too far from the conservative political Establishment.
First of all, he notes the stakes for the United States in Pakistan. It is a nuclear power that is incapable of maintaining control at home and therefore one that could "turn into the wildcard of international diplomacy." Everyone knows this, he says, but "the remedy has proved elusive." Recent U.S. policy has been to favor a coalition of Musharraf and the civilian parties - a "laudable goal" but not a "practical" one. Elections in a country that does not have a civil society "sharpen" rather than solve crises. Elections, it seems, too often result in electing the wrong people.
For Kissinger, there are nothing but "feudal" forces at play in Pakistan - large landholders in Sindh province (Bhutto's party), commercial classes in the Punjab (Sharif's party), and the military. The struggle among them is like that of the Italian city-states during the Renaissance - shifting alliances and no sense of the "general good." The military are the arbiters in the end. Ergo what? Any attempt by the United States to "manipulate" the political process is likely to "backfire." The "evolution of the immediate political process is beyond our reach."
Yes, Musharraf has been a loyal ally and the United States cannot afford to dissociate itself from him, for it would send a bad message to other loyal allies. But at the same time, it is Musharraf's task - "not ours" - to deal with the results of the election. In short, he is on his own. The United States should not worry about Pakistan politics, only about so-called "national security questions" - control of the nuclear weapons and resistance to terrorists (Islamic radicals).
Kissinger's op-ed was published in the same week that Admiral Fallon resigned from command of U.S. forces in the entire Middle East region. It seems he has said, too often and too loudly, that military action by the United States in Iran is not possible, as a "practical" possibility. Another "realist"? It seems also that Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been saying the same thing, if more discreetly. And it seems that Mullen's predecessor, General Pace, also said the same thing.
Bush and Cheney wish to insist publicly that the military option is on the table, even if it is really off the table. They seem to think this will frighten the Iranians and appease the Israelis. The trouble is that no one believes Bush and Cheney any more, even about what they say they might do, and probably really want to do.
Macho militarism isn't working for the United States these days. Realism as an imperial alternative seems pretty close to a desperate ploy. But are there any other ploys left for the United States in the Middle East?" 
Did the countdown begin for the military action by the USA against Iran?
These days the USA is getting prepared to take military action against Iran after Iraq. This shocking claim was made by "US News" magazine that has been watching for the Cheney's Mideast trip. For the magazine, the countdown for Iran has already started.
"US News and World Report", a weekly magazine in the USA emphasizes the six signs which signify that the USA military action is only a short time ahead:
1- The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon.
2- The USA Vice President Cheney's Mideast trip/trick
3- The U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon
4- Israeli President Shimon Peres said that Israel would not be alone at the time of any military action against Iran.
5- Israel's air-strike on a Syrian military installation in Deyr ez-Zor district in Syria
6- Israel's war with Lebanon in 2006
According to TimeTurk.com, "After the resignation of Fallon, who was considered to be the lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program, the news about the military action has begun to spread out once more on the American media.
 04.04.2008 / www.gasteci.com
 A commentary by Immanuel Wallerstein