All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:35
May 1, 2009, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
How about that Obama foreign policy out there, folks?
You know, nobody talking about this.
And by the way, speaking of nobody talking about foreign policy and a bunch of other things, you know how magicians work, sly the hand.
You've heard right now, this administration is trying to get everybody focused on what?
What?
The swine flu.
We don't have any deaths in this country to swine flu.
We've got a smidgen percentage of our population that's contracted.
It's a weak strain and yet swine flu, swine flu, swine flu.
What are they doing in their other hand?
Well, they're focusing us on swine flu.
You've always got to keep a sharp eye on what they're not talking about, but what they are doing when they put out all this stuff designed to cause panic and fear.
It's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
That's right.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
That's 800.
Sometimes I run these numbers together because I've been saying it for 20 years.
800-282-2882.
Very few restrictions, if any.
When you call a program, and we'll get to your phone calls here in just a second.
In this, well, the month of April, this is now May 1st.
How about that Obama foreign policy?
The month of April, the deadliest month in Iraq since September.
Now, it's being reported.
The drive-bys have got their story on it.
But are you seeing anybody of the drive-bys trumpet the story?
Are you seeing any, oh, the body cow?
Are you seeing any stories of the violence in Iraq and how things may be falling?
You're not.
Not at all.
No, because the template is, oh, the world loves us so much more now.
We've got the best foreign policy.
Obama's apologizing to the country.
Nations around the world are very appreciative that we're acknowledging our weaknesses and our mistakes and our existence.
And da-da-da-da-da-da.
Deadliest month in Iraq since September.
Do you think, I just put this out there, something for you to ponder.
Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, that the violence in Iraq might be on the upswing because Obama's made it clear we're getting out of there?
Do you think that might be a factor?
It could very easily.
Andrew McCarthy, who was editor at National Review Online, former attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Southern District of Manhattan, New York, which is Manhattan, was invited by Eric Holder, the Attorney General, to appear on a, or to participate in a meeting, a Justice Department meeting with Obama's task force on detention policy, and he has declined this invitation in a letter.
Now, I'm going to send the letter up to Coco so we can put it up at rushlimbaugh.com.
But I want to read you excerpts of Andy's letter to the Attorney General Eric Holder.
Dear Attorney General Holder, this letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4th Roundtable meeting of the President's Task Force on Detention Policy, convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases.
An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the counterterrorism section who are members of the task force, which you are leading.
The invitation email indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants, or what the department now calls individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.
I admire the lawyers of the counterterrorism division and I don't question their good faith.
Nevertheless, it's quite clear, most recently from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany, that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists into the United States.
Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues.
I deeply disagree with your policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president's first obligation to protect the people.
Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent rather than be used as a prop.
Do you realize the guts and the courage it took to send this letter to the Attorney General?
Let me continue.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear, Mr. Attorney General, that under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policymakers, like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy, may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice,
in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.
Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing, I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay or a facility like it until the conclusion of hostilities.
This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court case, Supreme Court of the 2004 Hamdi case.
Yet as recently as Wednesday in Germany, you asserted that in your considered judgment, such notions violate America's commitment to the rule of law.
Indeed, you elaborated nothing symbolizes our administration's new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us, a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law.
Mr. Attorney General, given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend your task force meeting.
After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I'll say this much.
For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the U.S. about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated.
Essentially, there have been two camps.
One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, a strategy used throughout the 1990s.
The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war crimes prosecutions by military commission.
Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way, a hybrid system designed for the realities of modern international terrorism, a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans as well as our allies that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals, but their proponents and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches have all agreed on at least one thing.
Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass murder attacks simply cannot be released while the war ensues and while Americans are still being targeted.
We've already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans.
Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight, consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric.
The president began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year.
The president did this even though he and you, A, agree that Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, B, acknowledge our nation is still at war, and C, concede that many Guitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules.
Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried.
Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy.
It's an effort to justify a bad policy that's already been adopted, to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that's what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I'm powerless to stop you from releasing a top al-Qaeda operative or operatives who plan mass murder attacks against American cities, and any names some of them here.
I am similarly powerless to stop you from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees.
According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will be apparently live freely on American taxpayer assistance, despite the fact that they're affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the president as he takes these reckless steps from touting his detention policy task force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness.
But I can decline to participate in the charade.
It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
I've always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology.
Thus, my conservative political views aside, I've made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, Democrats and Republicans, who thought tapping my experience would be beneficial.
So Andrew McCarthy just told the Obama administration that he will not be used as a pawn to participate in a task force whose policy decisions have already been made and who the announcement of such policy was said to be bipartisan.
And Mr. McCarthy said, in addition, the way you are pursuing lawyers who gave advice they were asked for, as now criminals, to ruin them or whatever, how could I possibly come up and tell you what I really think?
Since people who disagree with you will be this is a fantastic exercise in logic, reason, refutation, and courage.
So I'm going to send this up to Coco.
It's posted a number of places, but among them, the National ReviewInstitute.org is where it is.
In fact, Coco, here it is.
nrinstitute.org slash mustread PHP.
Give me that again.
nrinstitute.org slash mustread.php.
And we'll get it up there El Quicko, and you'll be able to read Andy's letter to Attorney General Sent this morning.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Yeah, I knew this is going to happen.
We blew out the server at the NR Institute where Andy's letter has been posted.
So I have instructed Coco at rushlimbaugh.com.
He's our webmaster to post it ourselves.
So it'll take a while.
I sent him a copy of it.
It'll just be a matter of text formatting it for our own page.
But it's going to be a while before you can get it at the website I read because the server's been overwhelmed with people who want to read Andy's letter.
So as soon as Coco informs me that we have a copy of it up on rushlimbaugh.com, then I'll direct you there.
Or you can just keep checking because it won't be long.
All right, back to the phones, Bill in Philadelphia.
Great to have you here, sir, on Open Line Friday.
Captain, my captain, it's actually Gil, not Bill, but many of the consulting dittos from Philadelphia.
I just wanted to say that as a consulting engineer, I have a small firm, and when I get the system to work for me, I call that success.
And when the system fails me, I call that failure.
So by Barack Obama looking for somebody that the system has failed, isn't he in essence looking for someone who's a failure?
For a Supreme Court nominee?
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
He's looking for a failure.
He's looking for somebody who's been on the wrong side of the law.
Yeah, he's looking for somebody who does not know success because those people, see, in his worldview, the only reason those people are on the wrong side of the law or haven't had any success is because the achievers, those who have accomplished things, are stealing from them and denying them opportunity.
And that's what he's going to change.
And he's hell-bent on it.
And he's making it clear every time he opens his mouth.
Being an Open Line Friday, can I go off topic just for a moment?
There are no topics on Open Line Friday, so go for it.
Just make it good.
Well, you know, concerning the banking failures, in 1992, when Bill Clinton came to office, there were about 12,000 banks in the United States.
And it was Clinton's policy and the policy of the Federal Reserve that they wanted fewer but larger banks.
And when he left office, I believe there were about 8,000 banks.
And essentially what this meant was America lost its diversity in the banking industry.
So when we have failures, they're bigger and much worse.
And this is a topic that I think is being largely ignored.
It's an excellent point out there, Gil.
I'm glad you went off topic.
Well, thank you, Rush.
I'm glad I didn't let you down, buddy.
You didn't let me down, Gil.
And I'm sorry for mispronouncing your name.
It was Snerdley's mistake.
No, I knew that.
I've never heard you make a mistake, Rush.
That's right.
I don't.
When I make mistakes, it's other people, and I usually cover for them.
Anyway, well, thanks for covering for all of us, Rush.
We love you and we appreciate it.
Love you too, Gil, very much.
Thanks so much for the call.
By the way, Snerdley told me during the break, folks, that he had a call up there for Open Line Friday that went away.
She couldn't hang on.
She was from Midwest somewhere.
Do you remember Crocker, Missouri?
Crocker, Missouri.
I don't know where Crocker is, but Roberta from Crocker, Missouri.
Okay, it's in the box.
And she was middle-aged.
And she wanted to know.
So I wish she would have held on.
It's a perfect Open Line Friday question.
She wanted to know why I lit up my house like a Christmas tree the night everybody else turned off their lights.
She says, even if I didn't agree with them, why waste all the electricity?
And I wish she would have held on because this, that's such a teachable moment question.
So I'm going to pretend that she's on the phone here and has asked me this question.
Because remember, this was the thing that Edward Norton, the actor, went on Larry King Alive and promoted to turn off the lights.
It was to symbolize something about global warming and how we can all work together to make change.
They're going to turn the lights out for an hour on a Saturday night.
And when I heard that, I was advocating everybody turn every light you've got on that hour, inside, outside.
Put up your Christmas tree for the night.
And she wants to know why would you do that?
And I would have a simple question for you, Roberta, if you're still there.
Why would you turn yours off?
No, seriously.
Just because some actor goes on Larry King Live or some leftist environmental group says, everybody, turn your lights off, why would you do it?
Why do they get the benefit of the doubt that their premise that their reason is honorable and good and worthwhile?
Why would you turn yours off just because these people say to do it?
Why would you not resist the tug of popular sentiment?
You make yourself feel better by going along with such nonsense.
The reason I turned my lights on, Roberta, and lit my house up as brightly as I could, and the reason why on Earth Day I sent my airplane to California and back burning jet fuel.
The reason I do all this is to do two things: A, to not conform with the tug of popular sentiment, which is a bunch of sheep.
I refuse to be a sheep.
I refuse to be a lemming.
And I refuse to accept stupid, idiotic, erroneous premises.
This premise being that if we all turned our lights out, somehow we're making a statement for the future of saving the planet.
It's absurd.
And so rather than just not turn my lights off, wherever there are liberals, Roberta, I oppose them.
And this is nothing more than a bunch of liberal activists practicing mind control and trying to create as many sheep as possible.
And I am not Ben, and I'm never going to be a sheep.
So I do it.
I was expanding the economy.
I was keeping people working.
I was simply expressing my political point of view and just shoving it down their throats.
And as I've mentioned on this program late, oh, oh, we have now posted Andrew McCarthy's letter at rushlimbaugh.com.
If you're trying to get into the nrinstitute.org website, we fried the servers there.
Our server farm can handle a load.
So Andrew McCarthy's letter is now there.
Just look in the orange-yellow banner for the link at the top of the page at rushlimbaugh.com, and it's there now.
Just fabulous.
More of this needs to happen from Republicans.
Andy's not even, I mean, he's a Republican, but he's a lawyer first.
He's a thinker and so forth.
But this kind of reaction to what's happening in the country, this is very, very courageous and gutsy what he did.
You need to read a letter that I read excerpts of moments ago.
Now, many of you people know I have some SUVs, and they're all General Motors products.
I've got a Suburban, I have a Z71 Suburban, and I have an Escalade.
And I have this business around the property and picking up guests at the airport and so forth.
I don't drive them.
I don't like SUVs, but a lot of people do.
And you put a lot of people's luggage in them.
They serve great purpose.
Plus, they're big and powerful and burn a lot of gas, and I love that.
Now, as you know, we have an official sponsor here, BG Products.
Now, BG Products makes fluid for automobile engines, and they offer all kinds of guarantees with their fluids on the life of the engine after you start using their products.
And the people at BG Products, they didn't have to sell me, but they wanted to.
They wanted me to take one of my cars to a dealership here in the area which uses BG Products.
BG Products has a website.
The website is findbgfindashop.com.
You don't buy this stuff at stores.
They have maintenance shops and dealerships and repair shops that use it, but you got to find one that does to get it.
It's bgfindashop.com.
So they asked me to take, to prove their point about their fluids, they asked to take any one of the cars to a dealership here that does service with their products.
So I did, and they checked all the fluids in the vehicle.
That was one of the suburbans, I think.
They then had the dealership send them the fluids from my car that were replaced, from my SUV, because I wanted to know exactly what condition the car was in and the fluids, and they wanted to show me.
So in their lab, they tested my transmission fluid, and they found that it was contaminated to the point there were high levels of copper, iron, and lead in the transmission.
The old transmission fluid stopped protecting my transmission's components.
Now, let me tell you something else.
The guy who drives these trucks around kept telling me that he had to keep taking this thing in for service because it was not running right, it was not shifting smoothly or whatever.
And I just don't bother me with this.
Just take it in there.
Now, I thought he was just being a nitpicker.
What do you mean?
This was the reason why.
The transmission fluid was bad.
By not replacing it, the people at BG Products told me that I was facing a future catastrophic failure of the transmission.
So BG Products puts the best synthetic transmission fluid available in cars they service.
They have the only lifetime protection plan in the industry.
Now, transmissions are expensive to replace.
And if you're holding on to a car now, not buying a new one because of the economy or whatever, then you've got to service the engine.
You know, it's be cheaper than buying a new car.
So, and they make not just transmission, but brake fluid and oil treatment products for the engine.
So you have to find a service center that offers BG transmission service, and you do that at bgfindashop.com.
It's very, very simple.
And I was, I was a believer in them.
And I've talked enough people who have used their products, but they wanted to prove it to me.
And they did.
Well, I don't dislike them, snerdly.
Don't misunderstand.
I just don't like driving them.
I'm happy to own them and have other people.
They're functional, but I'm not a big SUV person.
I never have been.
I like a solid, smooth, giant sedan kind of ride.
I don't want to have to use a stepladder to get into my car.
I know women love these things.
The Chevrolet, speaking of SUVs and Chevrolet, they're trying to redefine the process by which people buy cars.
They're trying to sell cars, which is the purpose of an automobile company.
They're in the healthcare business now.
But, you know, don't forget now that what's happened here is that Chevrolet, they've extended the Blue Skies program, which is buy a new Chevy, and if you lose your job, they'll make your payments up to $500 a month for nine months.
They're trying to incentivize people to buy new cars.
In this case, Chevrolet, but most of their brands, there are restrictions.
You have to now take delivery by June 1st.
So go to a participating dealer.
And then after you do this, I'm serious, find some place that sells VG product fluids and get it serviced.
Molly, in Carmel, California.
Beautiful place.
Now, are you in Carmel Valley or are you at Carmel by the Sea?
No, I'm Carmel by the Sea.
Because Doris Day, who is a friend of mine, lives in Carmel Valley.
I go to her place every Tuesday and Friday night with my standard poodle voicelli.
Yeah, she's practically got a zoo there, I know.
Yeah, she's a wonderful lady.
Well, I'm a first-time caller rush.
I'm so excited to be on your program.
I wanted to tell you that Carl Rove is coming to the Monterey Conference Center along with a fellow by the name of David Pluth, who is a fairy man.
David, who, what's the last name?
I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, David Pluth.
He was formerly.
Oh, it's Fluff.
Yeah, David Fluff, one of Obama's campaign guys.
Okay.
So anyway, they have a conference going, and the topic, the topic is: can the partisan survive ever end?
And what I want to say is in the papers, and I want to name names, this CNN correspondent, Frank Fesno, he goes, We trust all weekly readers will refrain from throwing shoes or pies at the worthy Mr. Rove.
Now, you know, if we're going to end some sort of divide like they're saying, what a ridiculous comment to make.
I think Mr. Says No was trying to be funny.
But this is typical of liberal humor.
The premise, you know, the belief here is that Karl Rove is going to be targeted.
They just think that that Rove was coming.
Oh, my God, Rove's coming out.
So he said, we trust people won't throw pies or shoes at Karl Rove.
It's just, I don't know, it's not have a whole lot of class to it, but I think it's, I just think these guys trying to be funny.
I think that's an example of a sense of humor.
They're not funny, but it's an example.
Don't worry.
Even if somebody throws a pie or a shoe at Karl Rove, he'll dive in the audience after him.
Karl Rove doesn't take this from anybody.
He'll be fine.
Everything's cool.
Look at it's a it's a it's a it's just what it is.
I'm glad that you saw that.
That's who they are.
Now, Snurdley thinks that Cezno's sending out a signal to throw shoes and pies at Rolfe.
And that could be maybe they want that picture.
Maybe they want that kind of thing to happen.
If they want that kind of thing to happen, do this in Santa Cruz.
Go up the road to UC Santa Cruz, and it'll happen without anybody saying a word.
I got to take a break.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Okay.
And we're back.
El Rush Ball on Open Line Friday.
And this is Rod in Detroit.
Hey, Rod, I learned something today that I didn't know.
Dave Bing, the former NBA grade, is going to run for mayor there.
That is correct.
He is running, although I'm not, well, at least he's a guy that's got a little bit of experience and agumption.
We won't even go there with respect to the former mayor.
Well, yeah, I can understand that.
Kevin Johnson, who I knew when he played for the Phoenix Suns, now the mayor of Sacramento, is going out there to help Bing in his mayoral campaign.
Anyway, I know you didn't call about that.
What was you called about?
Well, first, mega locomotive engineer Dittos to you.
This is a second time call, and I'm most honored to speak with you.
I wanted to talk to you.
We have one American firm already making what I consider to be the world's highest quality and most fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
My question to you: Will the Chrysler bankruptcy, specifically Obama, the Obama administration's prop-up and free transfer of this company to another loser company, Fiat, help spur sales along of Ford Motor Company products?
I was just wondering how you think Americans will respond to this overt attempt on the part of the Obama administration to prop up Chrysler.
It's all going to depend on whether Chrysler makes cars people want to buy.
It won't matter to people if Chrysler survives, however they survive.
I mean, people are not going to be ideological when they go in there.
Now, you might have some people who refuse to simply because they're Obama people.
If they make cars people want to buy, that's going to be that ought to be the sole determining factor.
And I just, you know, with the United Auto Workers Pension Fund owning 55%, I mean, I don't know who the car guys are at the United Auto Workers.
I don't know.
There may be some guys in there that know how to design cars.
They're frustrated.
You can find talent everywhere.
But wherever they find it, I mean, whoever can design and build cars that people want.
Problem is that Chrysler is going to be forever under the direction of Obama.
And the Sierra Club probably going to be the ones designing Chryslers, which means you're going to be buying lawnmowers and all that with a couple seats on them.
It's tough.
It's going to be very tough.
Rod, thanks for the call.
Dan in Columbus, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
How are you doing?
The truck driving dittos from Columbus, Ohio.
Thank you, Shah, very much.
On the honor of Earth Day, I let my freight liner idle all night long, although it was 64 degrees.
Hubba, hubba.
So I did my part.
Rush, I have a question, and then I'm trying to get some information about one of your sponsors here.
My question is real simple.
When you first made it and made it in quotation marks, when there were enough zeros in the checkbook, so to speak, what did you go out and buy?
What did I buy when I made it?
When you first made it, in other words, I know you're always talking about how you've been fired seven times and so on and so forth.
But when you first made it, like I said, when there was enough zeros in that checkbook, when it didn't make a difference, I guess is kind of what I'm trying to say.
Okay, you want to know what I bought when I first didn't have to worry what it cost, is basically what you're at.
That's what you're asking me, right?
Exactly.
Well, the reason I asked this question is I heard an interview with, who was it, Mark Cuban, who I'm sure you know who that is for the Dallas Mavericks.
Yeah, Mayaverse.
Okay, and the question, he answered the question, it amazed me.
He says that when he was first forming, I guess, one of his businesses, he was in a house with a bunch of guys, and he could never find a towel.
And he says that one of the first things he bought when he had money was enough towels that he would never have to worry about having towels again.
I just thought there was kind of a goofy answer, but still, you know, okay, now, wait a minute.
I can sort of relate to that in a way.
This is not when I made it.
This is before I made it.
But when I got, I was in Sacramento and I got a raise to $45,000 a year.
I reveled in being able to buy enough toilet paper at one time that I would not have to go to the grocery store every week or so for that.
Now, I always had towels.
I was not a slob.
But, you know, toilet paper was not a food problem.
You go to the grocery store, you buy necessities.
But to be able to buy enough toilet paper to stock the closet with not have to worry about buying it for a long time.
But when it didn't matter what things cost, I guess the first thing would be I was on a cruise, a listener cruise.
In the early days of this program, we did those in some place in the Caribbean.
I don't even remember.
It might have been Grand Cayman.
But I bought a Rolex.
I bought a $10,000 Rolex President.
President watch.
And when I got back, you know, if you've taken a cruise, you know, you get X amount of free stuff, duty-free, that you can, if you go over that, you have to declare it.
I know fully well what you mean by that.
Okay, so the customs guys are on the cruise ship, and we're all going through there, giving them the cards we filled out.
And I listed the Rolex and the price of the Rolex.
The customs guys looked at me and they started laughing.
You're declaring this?
I said, yeah.
He said, well, you could have worn it.
We'd have never known.
I said, uh-uh.
Somebody would find out someday.
And if I had known this is the key to being nominated to a position in the Obama administration, I would not have declared it so that I would have had a tax problem.
But the next thing that I did, when it didn't matter, but I got to tell you, I still, you know, my upbringing was such, I chartered a little Learjet to go to my brother's birthday party in Missouri because I'd have had to fly to St. Louis and drive south for two hours and drive back.
The schedules were such that I wouldn't be able to get there.
So I chartered a Learjet that cost $1,500 an hour.
And I could afford it, but I just, I could not, the fact that I was paying it when normally $1,500 at that point in time would have bought you first class to China and back, I just, and there was a little guilt.
There was, oh, I'm wasting it.
Oh, I'm getting extravagant and so forth.
It was, that lasted about a month.
Well, I got over that.
Well, when I, it didn't take me long to start chartering larger airplanes.
Well, you solved the problem by getting EIB-1 is what you did.
Eventually solve the problem by, yeah, and it's my second one, now G550.
But if I hadn't sprung for that first $1,500 an hour to charter that Lear 35, who knows?
But I got to tell you, and even spending $10,000 on the Rolex, I had never had the money to do that.
And even doing it, I said, oh my gosh, am I being stupid to spend this much money on a watch?
That lasted about five minutes.
Well, this has been a pretty good week.
Wouldn't you say, Sturdley?
Done prime.
A pretty good week of shows here on the EIB network.
And we'll be back Monday to wrap it up, be in gear, wound up, ready to go, dealing with whatever messes happen over the weekend.
And you know there'll be some.
So we'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection