By Bush's own definition, this testifies to aiding and abetting terrorists--and GW Bush is guilty!!!! Treason in time of war--Hah, hah,hah--silly Americans his sentence should be a slow Cambodian circumcision--and yet you toy with the idea of re-electing him--you deserve your collective fate if you do.

Have any of these dealings been represented to congress? Is a Republican majority in the House enough to keep this from prosecution? I am sorry to play this broken record again and again Mark, but how exactly do they get away with these things? I want to know how exactly do they do it. What methods? What legal basis? How does the corporate media ignore this? Wouldn't it sell newspapers? I'll try to get through on the phone.
Thanks again for a great show and thank you Mr. Unger for your mind-blowing book.
RM NYC

To answer your questions, RM: I believe that the 9/11 commission is investigating at least the Saudis that got the plane trips back home while Americans were grounded and hope they will also investigate the strange story of Prince Ahmed.

As for the $1.4 billion in business ties between the House of Saud and the House of Bush, I suspect this will not be investigated as long as the Republicans have a majority in both Houses of Congress.

How do they get away with this? Well, it's not a crime to have business interests with the Saudis. And it's not a crime to give them special treatment. The crime is only if there's a "quid pro quo," and that's very hard to prove.

The corporate media ignores this because the Bush-Saudi ties go back several decades. They consider the multi-million dollar Saudi bail-out of Bush companies to be "old news."

As for releasing the Saudi terrorist (Prince Ahmed), there is no evidence to date that Bush knew he was a terrorist. What's at issue is the special treatment that caused Bush to let this particular terrorist go.

70 to 90% of Iraqi prisoners are innocent, yet we torture them. Thousands of Arab immigrants are detained in America without criminal charges. Yet Bush sucks up to the Saudis and does not hold their suspects -- including members of the Bin Laden family -- even for interrogation, much less detention.

Is there a connection between Bush special favoritism to the Saudis and the Saudis' millions invested in Bush companies?

I report. You decide.

The reason none of this gets reported is because there is no ground for it to stand on! The Lib media would pounce at anything they could against bush. Perhaps the reason we dont hear is because there is no tie? bush didnt know? perhaps its only because planes were grounded for 1 day not 3 when the flight left? There is a long list of answeres that mark fails to report...its a common practice...he is a lawyer...lying is what they do best...(hehe had to take a cheap one at you there mark:))

Ben

Ben,

You amaze me with your difficult struggle to believe that everything Bush does is perfect. Such a struggle takes you to the limits of human fantasy. Apparently, it even causes you to create facts where none are there. I understand it's quite a contagious illness, and I feel your pain. Dick Cheney has this sickness and has nearly died from it several times.

Mark, I dont think everything he does is perfect. No one is perfect. But I have found you to tell many half truths...because of this I find it hard to beleive most of what you say. You exagerate to make weak arguements sound credible. Like I said before its typical of what lawyers do:)

Ben

You have to be more specific, Ben. Which "half-truth" was in the current program? Do you dispute the amount of money paid by the Saudis to Bush-related companies over the past decades? Do you dispute that Prince Ahmed knew about 9/11? Do you dispute that Bush let him go back to Saudi Arabia overrulling those that wanted to interrogate him?

Note I never said Bush knew Prince Ahmed was a terrorist at the time he granted the Saudi's request to return home when no Americans were allowed to fly. Indeed, I expressly say above there's no evidence of this. (Wow! Mark Levine being fair and defending Bush when that's what the evidence shows! Some lawyer I am!) I only said Bush gave him and other Saudis -- including two dozen members of the Bin Laden family -- this "special favor" and compared it to the many innocents we have mistreated in the war on terrorism who had the misfortune of never contributing to Bush coffers.

I find it ironic also that you attack "half-truths" while defending this Administration. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Administration in American history that has told more half-truths and blatant lies than this one.

Indeed, on virtually every question of public policy, big and small, this Administration has lied to the American Public. Unlike other Administrations that lie or shade the truth occasionally, the Bush Administration lies reflexively...without any hesitation or compunction.

The so called lies you speak of our stretches on your behalf...Im not even talking about the current show for half truths...an example of the top of my head is "Bush's policy gives tax breaks if you buy and SUV" you know that is not the case! I have an SUV and didnt get a tax cut...During your show on this matter I wrote in and you even stated I was correct that your information was not the entire story. 2 minutes later you were making the exact same remarks!! Its numerous instances like this that make me question every one of your points. Now...I also listen to Limbaugh...he also does this...I know this because I listen to your show and you give the other side of the story...so I listen to both sides to drow my conclusions.

Ben

The tax break provides up to a $75,000 deduction for those who buy an SUV for business purposes. You must have not bought yours for business purposes. I said "Bush's policy gives tax breaks if you buy an SUV" without specifying you had to claim it was for business to get the tax break.

I'm guilty, at worst, of simplifying...of mentioning a tax break without mentioning all its details (some of which are mind-numbing). My point was there was a special benefit for a vehicle that helps increase our dependence on foreign oil.

I'm not even sure that's a "stretch." You could probably quibble with anything I say because it's virtually impossible to give the full details on anything, and the fact that I conceded the "business purposes" two minutes later shows, I think, that I wasn't hiding anything and I'm not afraid of the truth.

But don't you think that's a big contrast from what's happening in the Bush Administration?

you still dont tell the whole story...the SUV has to be over 6000 lbs (I think that is correct but it could be higher) So at that weight most SUV's dont even fit the criteria (a full size explorer weighs less then 6000 lbs)! You did simplify the break but in doing so you cut out the entire reason the break exists. How is that the truth? The reason this break exists is to pursuade business owners to buy a new truck. So i guess in order to free us from our oil dependency UPS should buy hybrid cars? Yah that seems to be the answer!

The whole point is you did not come close to mentioning the stipulations put on this tax cut for the sole purpose of making your point!

Now because I knew the rules in this case well enough to know you were not telling the entire scoop I am skeptical when I hear other stories you tell because im sure its a "simplified" version of the real thing.

Hey Ben,

How about if we require all those that use the SUV for "business reasons" to state the business reason on the tax return? I understand the business reason for a UPS truck, but what could possibly be the "business" reason a rich CEO or doctor/lawyer/accountant needs an SUV?

And, how about this, if someone who takes the tax break is caught using the SUV to haul around the family for personal reasons -- say, he/she get a ticket with the family in tow and tells the cop they were going to the beach -- you have to pay back the tax exemption for all the years you've used it and then double it as a fine?

Got a problem with that?

And how do you feel about a tax break for hybrid cars, soybean-powered cars and other vehicles that actually help decrease our dependence on Saudi and Arab oil? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the at least $300 billion and thousand lives we will expend in Iraq!

I agree with you that they should state the reason for use. Dr's and lawyers have no reason for recieving a tax break, but there are dishonest people in the world that cheat the system.

I would support a tax break for hybrid cars for business purposes. for instance if a company had the choice of gas driven truck and a hybrid only give a tax braek on the hybrid (assuming it doesnt cause performance problems for the company)

I do beleive there is a certain ammount of usage that has to be business and only a small ammount can be personal use, so it would be very hard to prove. For instance my freinds dad owns a business, his dad bought him a sports car for his 16th birthday through thier company...so this is not just an SUV problem. People can write off any car for business purposes.

You make the mistake of assuming iraq is about oil...there is not one peice of evidence suggesting that. As far was the money for the way is concerned, wars cost money. Ill remind you we were in a war time economy from WWII until Bill Clinton took office and we now see how that affected our economy. I know you are going to talk about the jobs and the economy durring his office but what about the economy Bush recieved...democrats were blaming the economy on Bush days after he took office!

I have read the show for tonight adn I can tell from the overview it is going to be full of half stories. You all ready missed the point! We were never told iraq was behind or helped 9/11. We were told Iraq and al quaida have connections...Russian intelligence has now toldus they recieved information that Iraq was going to carry out terrorist acts against the US.

1. I'm glad you agree with me that we should give tax incentives to those who choose vehicles that reduce our dependence on foreign oil rather than increase it.

2. If Iraq was not about oil, what was it about?

3. As for tonight's show, Ben -- it's Sunday, so you have no work concerns. I challenge you to call in and debate with me live on air!

Mark, don't let Ben distract you! He's playing the same game that all those Bush zombies are so good at. Instead of having to own up to the fact that their beloved leader lies like a cheap rug, he's trying to attack you personally so you'll have to expend more effort on defending yourself than on pointing out flaws in the present administration that he can't discredit.

Keep in mind that he has not denied any of your accusations against the Bush clan(and, coming from Florida, I think I'm using the term "clan" correctly here). Instead, he looks for ANYTHING that you say that he can use as a diversion.

Stand your ground. You are in the right!

Shame on you, Ben. Americans deserve better.