he s got all those facts and figures. gerald, are you that bad? are you that bad a wonk where you actually do go into these numbers? i think i disagree with you. this is hardball. let s have a fight. i like the idea of mass transportation. you ve reduced it to per seat, per dollar and you say the what do you call it, the cost benefit doesn t work out for you when it comes to mass transit. your thinking on that? well, i mean, the math just doesn t work, chris. i mean, unless you have super high densities in areas, and we don t have a lot of high density in the south. you don t have a lot of smog? you don t have smog and dirty air because of too many cars on the street and too much traffic? you don t have that problem down there? you don t have near as much smog as you had because the automobile is so much cleaner today. but it s a different subject. i mean, if you really want to talk about is mass transit cost effective, especially if you re talking about rail, just doesn t
prohibited, but waterboarding which doesn t cause permanent physical injury was a close question. also, we have to remember that we were asked this question because of a particular person, abu is a bad a, captured in pakistan, thought to have information on pending attacks. we were just a few months after the attacks. 3,000 people had been killed. we knew little about al qaeda, stunningly little about al qaeda at the time, we knew they wanted to carry out pending attacks. i think any responsible president of either party would have ordered enhanced interrogation under those circumstances. you looked at it, reviewed it, said it was okay under the law. the senate intel people say no intelligence, none, was gleaned through those methods. and you say? i think that s mistaken, i think that s a product of the bias way the report was done. no republicans were involved in the report, and incredibly as a lawyer, find it incredible, no
prohibited, but waterboarding which doesn t cause permanent physical injury was a close question. also, we have to remember that we were asked this question because of a particular person, abu is a bad a, captu pakistan, thought to have information on pending attacks. we were just a few months after the attacks. 3,000 people had been killed. we knew little about al qaeda, stunningly little about al qaeda at the time, we knew they wanted to carry out pending attacks. i think any responsible president of either party would have ordered enhanced interrogation under those circumstances. you looked at it, reviewed it, said it was okay under the law. the senate intel people say no intelligence, none, was gleaned through those methods. and you say? i think that s mistaken, i think that s a product of the bias way the report was done. no republicans were involved in the report, and incredibly as a lawyer, find it incredible, no