Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us...er=rss&emc=rss

:2excited:

It is only a manifestation of the Dems war wagon circling the wagons
 

to protect Pelosi and other liars involved.
Consider the source...Panetta:1rotfl:
The following is rhetorical and unintended for anybody personally:
How could he end a program that is yet to be identified?

Oooops , there I go again taking an anecdotal testimony to task and asking for a fact!!!!!

I know we can't turn the clock back but it's just too bad the prior administration was not as open and transparent and as honest and non secretive as the current administration....:a20:...:jester:

btk

:duck: CAREFULL...big brother may be watching

From what I read, and believe me you will NEVER know much except for the political innuendo that is now diverting, it was a PLAN for a program that was NEVER EVER used.

Can we assume that it would have been shared with congress if it ever was going to be used as much as the assumption that the previous administration was trying to hide something ?

I suggest it depends on your party affliation....because this is ALL politics !

I would suggest we should worry more about LEAKS to the press about CIA business....THAT concerns me much much more !

Forgetting...
 

I don't buy into your allegation that "it's all politics", Bucco. The current flap and media reports may be politics, but the initial design of the program and it's concealment by the Vice President was definitely NOT politics. It was conduct by one branch of government that bordered on, if not crossed the line of illegality.

Forgetting whether the program concealed by Vice President Cheney was ever initiated or not--I don't know at this point. Does anyone think that this type of conduct on the part of the executive branch was what the framers of the Constitution had in mind for the relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government?

Somehow, I think not.

I THINK I agree with you on this VK.

I wonder how often this has been done.....and of course we never will !

Not condoning it at all and if there is a KNOWN violation of the law we should pursue it....HOWEVER, this is ALL political and we all know it and I am more concerned about the information being made public to the press !

Cant imagine nobody is concerned about the leaks and more about the politics !

I haven't been following this one very closely but I'm hesitant to believe in anything that the Times reports. Also, it has been suggested by many that the NYTtimes be held for treason for their many leaks, except of course, when one of their own is captured by the enemy.

If the law was violated by anyone it should be pursued....this country is about the rule of law.

Having said that......the Times is not as bad as those who feed them.

This entire episode seems to be all about politics. Ever wonder about the timing of this kind of stuf...BY BOTH SIDES.

Lets find out WHO LEAKED to the press !

I am a believer in the law...that being said..A newspaper will print what it wants regardless of who is feeding it. The NY Times has sat on many stories that didn't comply with their political agenda. The New York Times sat on the Edwards story for months, because of the Primaries. They pick and choose whatever story fits their fancy.

I think yes. There's a big difference between concealment and no requirement to report. The term concealment, absent a formal indictment, is strictly political in nature.

There is a distinct separation of powers between the Executive and the Congress. Just as the Executive has no right to demand any congressperson to disclose any/all their dealings (domestic or international) with anyone, or advise the Executive of any Congressonal investigation or plan of action, the reverse is also true. I don't see this as any different, provided no law was broken.

All Departments and independent Agencies within the Executive have a myriad of contingency plans on-the-shelf or in development. Congress never gets involved in the planning of any potential Executive action - again, it's a separation of powers issue. Congress only gets involved if: 1) current statutes or the Constitution require specific reporting to Congress on the planning of an action (and those reports are very specific as to format and content, and very rare); 2) new legislation is necessary to effect a plan; and/or 3) the plan's development needs additional funding only available from Congress.

The number of classified plans (and operations) within all the Departments and Agencies is quite extensive. They are all of varying classification and accessibility (or they wouldn't remain secret!) It's also extremely doubtful any one person anywhere knows about all of them. Also, it's quite logical that a new CIA director - especially one who is an intelligence business neophyte - won't learn about everything (including contingency plans development) ongoing in this world-wide and multi-tasked agency during an entire administration term - the volume of information is that large.

Is anybody concerned about how quickly Panetta's briefing to congress was leaked for partisan advantage? This was supposed to be a classified briefing.

But look at the bright side. If Cheney can be charged criminally for his actions to protect the country, then a future administration could hold Obama liable for the rash of missle strikes into Pakistan, along with the collateral civilian damage.

How about the Constitution here?
 

The first amendment was designed to allow a free press to keep an eye on that horrible "big government" you guys are always screaming about.

Article II, Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Finally- DICK CHENEY WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!! NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE VICE PRESIDENT HAVE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER TO ORDER ANY AGENCY TO DO OR NOT TO DO, TO WITHHOLD OR NOT WITHOLD EVIDENCE. PERIOD END OF THOUGHT. END OF CONSTIUTUTION. You would complain about "activist" courts, but somehow make it ok for a subordinate officer of the Executive to do as he pleased.

Either you follow the Constitution as written, as you claim, or you use it for an excuse for your own right-wing extremist schemes. Which is it?

Are you loyal Americans or just party hacks and conspiratorial traitors? Let Justice go where it is is required to go by the Constitution and the Law, and let the truth settle the issue. Unless of course, you're also saying that the entire justice system of the United States is under some evil control along with the Obama Executive and the Evil Legislative Branch as well.

This is nothing BUT politics and you know, look at this hand while the other hand has a knife in your back.

Throw the bums out in 2010.

As always you rant and rant and preach WITH NO FACTS WHATSOEVER !!!!

Was he required to report to Congress ? Since the "plan" was NEVER executed or planned, do you know if he was required to report to congress ?

I have seen NO..NOT ONE....POST saying that if he was required and did not exonerating him from any penalty ! NONE !

Yet, you rant on and on as if there were facts to consider !!!

You had better get under control and get off your high horse...please next time you want to vent...THINK...AND HAVE FACTS !!!!

NOW...lets assume (probably better chance than your choice) that he was NOT required to report, or heck, lets say he was required just for conversation sake...

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THOSE WHO LEAKED IT TO THE PRESS...especially if as rumored it was a Democratic congressperson ?

When one sorts through all the political and partisan gum beqating
 

don't we all hope that somebody is in charge of doing what ever it takes to keep us alive and out of harms way?
And what is wrong with keeping it from the incompetents in Congress who will do nothing but impede progress as they always do. And they would leak it to the media....you know...one of the terrorists best sources of information.

Don't you know the terrorists know how our wako Congress and all it's attendant partisan game playing and the media works? They are smart enough to play it like a fiddle.

I hope someone in the Obama administration is charged with some authority we all know nothing about to do what ever it takes to keep us safe.

Don't give me all the bleeding heart party lines. If you and or your family were able to survive not being burned alive in a terrorist nuclear blast because of someone charged to take action.....then how would you feel.

They didn't used to say "loose lips sink ships" in WW II for nothing.

What ever it takes!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

Actually, and PTOWNROB wont want to hear this....Obama, with the exception of GTMO closing (which has a long way to go yet), has decided to keep in place all those nasty things he and the Democrats have SCREAMED about for years...like rendition !

While your Constitutional quotes were accurate, they have absolutely no bearing or relevance on Director Panetta's "revelations."

Article II, Section 3 does not require the Executive to disclose to Congress all activities of the Executive, and provides broad discretion to the Executive on what will be broadcast. If there is no law which expressly requires the Executive to provide Congress with specific information at determined times in a particular format, then no law has been broken.

Section 4, as it relates to impeachment, requires charges, and what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" requires that criminal penalties exist for an intentional act, and that such intentional act has occurred.

The President has the lawful authority to delegate almost every responsibility he has to subordinates, including the Vice President, Departmental Secretaries, Directors of certain Independent Agencies, and even the White House janitor. Without such delegation, the Executive could not operate. One of the first acts of every President is to sign orders of delegation so that others have signature authority to act.

So, the fact that previous Vice Presidents performed functions, fulfilled responsibilities and issued orders under lawful delegation from the sitting President is routine, Constitutional and customary. This also includes VP Biden....

Party hacks and conspiratorial traitors are those who intentionally abuse the legal system and the public trust by creating political smokescreens to direct attention away from their actions or to hide their incompetence.

The fact that Director Panetta was surprised that he could not learn about every operation and plan (proposed, contingency, in development, awaiting decision) the CIA is involved in during the five short months he's had the job as Director, especially when he had NO repeat NO experience in the intelligence business prior to becoming Director should not be a surprise. People spend their entire careers in the intelligence business and never know more than their particular corner of the business.

You guys are so far out in right field you'll allow anything to be justified if it suits your political ideologies.

Bucco- The Pres. & his subordinates are required to faithfully execute the laws of the US. By definition, someone outside the executive must evaluate that execution, even if it's only the supreme court. See Nixon & the Tapes issue. Cheney, and only Cheney, since the Watergate issues were settled, exercised the incredible and unsustainable opionion (backed up by Gonsalez) that the separation of powers meant that the Executive was never subject to anyone outside of the Exec.

(Interestingly, it was Robert Bork who ended up firing Archibald Cox when the rest of Nixon's gov't refused to follow his orders for an unaccountable executive. (Thus making it understandable why people who value the constitution felt he and is ilk are a danger to it))

What's fascinating is that just after Bucco's post, Billie the Kid enumerates the positions that NOTHING can inhibit the executive (as long as he's a Right-wing, I assume) if he thinks he's protecting the president. Hitler, history's #1 right-wing hero, complained that the Jews were a threat to the sovereignty of Germany- let's give him a big "heil" for using national security without any oversight to try to eliminate that threat!

Absolute power without oversight is tyranny, plain and simple.

Bucco, you then go to talk about Obama & Gitmo, etc. I don;t agree with his thinking- but you know what? HE'S CONSULTING CONGRESS ABOUT IT! I don;t know whether laws were broken intentionally, unintentionally, or not at all. But when you have an executive that claims it has NO responsibilty to answer to anyone but itself- and you can also see this in Bush's Executive orders setting DHS/FEMA up as an un-investigatable body whenever he chooses to declare Martial Law- then again, we have tyranny.

Finally, Panetta has "revealed" what any program was. Only that 1.) The former heads of the CIA and other agencies didn't know about Cheney's orders, and that he didn't even find out about it until last week. And 2.) He stopped whatever "it" was. He, and the NYTimes, haven't released any classified information- they've only reported that an "operation" of some sort was found out about and stopped.

Finally, SteveZ says, "Party hacks and conspiratorial traitors are those who intentionally abuse the legal system and the public trust by creating political smokescreens to direct attention away from their actions or to hide their incompetence.

What's next? Claiming orphan's isurance benefits becasue you murdered your parents?
Please explain to us how that quote doesn't fit part and parcel into the entire Bush adminstration's handling of "faulty" (dishonest) intelligence about Iraq, it's incompetency about the war and ignoring or firing its detractors, and the handling of Katrina (Heck of a job, Brownie!)?


We have found out that virtually all of the excessive and, accoring to the SUpreme Court, illegal wiretapping and NSA eavesdropping produced virtually NO actionable intelligence. It appears Billythe Kid was willing to give up 300 million Americans' Constitutional right to privacy for absolutlely no gain, other than Dick Cheney's conspiratorial paranoia.

Let's remember folks, 9/11 happened on the Bush/Cheney watch. Plain, simple and factual. If something were to happen today, in July, wouldn't you guys be the first to blame Obama, even though he's been in office 2 months less than Bush was in 2001? Be honest now! Of course, and you'd find some paranoid excuse about being soft on terror or something.

:a20: PeeTown....Do you really believe the crap that you type out? LOL

Let's hope some on this thread never have to have their
 

steadfast, views tested. None know the depths of how far they would go or what they would allow or not until they are personally invested or at risk. Until such time the breeze coming from the keys is self interpretation and re-statement of what another post states, to suit their needs.
I love it when my opinions are restated incorrectly to force fit the interpretive need of another reader....however it is a 1st amendment prerogative....eh?

btk

I'm proud of my Pee! WHere's Larry Craig When You need Him!
 

Yes Marian, I do. And so hundreds of millions,if not billions of other Americans and citizens of the planet!

PTOWN...I started to type a response to your long post and actually got disgusted.

You really believe that you know more than anyone on here or in fact in the world. You preach as if what you say is fact. Example, you seem to know that whatever the CIA plans were that are being discussed were required to report to congress, yet nobody else on either side of the arguement know that...amazing...

"One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

You are so filled with the party line and hate that you have forgotten what facts are all about. You condemn people, you preach to people. I have opinions but I do not hate those who dont agree. None of my political opinions are based on hate as yours are obviously.

Your long post is not factual from you not having any idea of whether reporting was necessary to your use of Hitler and Watergate to pepper your remarks.

And you NEVER EVER mentioned those congressmen and women who allowed this letter to be released to the press. That is ok...that use of politics is ok with you because you agree.

First of all, "faithfully execute" does not mean report to Congress every time someone within the Executive writes a memo or issues an order. Congress does not have "blessing" authority over Executive actions or decisons, but can only bring forth charges if a "high crime or misdemeanor" as defined in either the Constitution or U.S. Code has occurred. If the charge is determined to be frivolous, whoever brings forth the charge may find him/herself charged accordingly.

Second, no one ever said that the intelligence products available to the Bush Administration and Congress in 2001/2002 were infallible It was the best the intelligence community (including the Brits and the rest of NATO) had at the time. In his budget-cutting frenzy, Pres. Clinton sliced away a number of intelligence production programs, and those slices impacted to the negative. So, if you want to blame Pres. Bush for everything, don't forget to include Pres. Clinton who decimated the US intelligence effort during his watch.

Let's get Katrina straight. At that time, the Mayor of New Orleans was a Democrat, the Governor of Louisiana was a Democrat, and both failed to "faithfully execute" their offices in times of danger. The laws prohibiting the federal government (see the Stafford Act, 42. USC 5121-5206) from just "taking over" and usurping local authority are blunt and well-known to big-city mayors and all governors. Had the Mayor and Governor done their jobs, the US Coast Guard would not have found itself rescuing over 30,000 people from rooftops. If you are unaware of the disaster declaration and response process, please review http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheet...n_process.shtm for guidance.

Those who want to vilify Pres. Bush and VP Cheney (and Congress) for their actions post-9/11 as Monday-Morning Quarterbacks, what would you have done differently to insure no more terrorist hits like 9/11 would occur again on US soil (and none did during thanks to the Bush/Congress initiatives). For those who seem to do the most finger-pointing, 9/11 must have been just a television event. Had the previous administration paid more attention to the intelligence information it had available to it, and not decimated the US intelligence effort for votes, there may not have ever been an Al Q'aida organization to deal with today.

But, it is easier to blame everything on everyone who is not on the DNC holiday card list. There's nothing like the simple approach, and the party loves all who take the simple approach.

Very good response Steve. Let me remind people that 9-11 was not the first time that the towers were attacked. Perhaps if Clinton had spent as much time being serious about the terrorists as he did his own self gratifications, 9-11 would never have taken place. It has been proven that we had Bin Laden in our sights a few times but for some unexplainable reason, we never acted on it. I'm sure President Bush would not have been as queasy about given the right orders.

Democrats manipulating news cycle
 

Read the whole thing:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/...rture-talk.php

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44054

Just A Quick Question, Keedy
 

I know you've been critical of Newsweek as a source of political reporting (something about having Barack Obama's picture on the cover too many times). But you linked us all to a source in your last post that I'm unfamiliar with...Wizbang...whatever or whoever that is.

This isn't the first internet source or blog that you've quoted as a source of absolute and undeniable fact. Are we supposed to believe that any of these sources that you apparently rely on to form your opinions have a greater degree of resources invested in gathering facts, reporting and journalistic integrity than Newsweek?

I know you'll probably answer in the affirmative, but to favorably compare the journalistic professionalism of Wizbang to Newsweek or The New York Times seems a little counter-intuitive to me. At some point, it seems to me, we ought to be assessing the quality of the sources we quote to others...even if it's just a highly partisan political forum here in TOTV. Statements made by some of these sources are clearly no more than someone's opinion and not the product of gathering and cross-checking facts from multiple sources.

They are what they are..no pretentions...just opinions of other links.. If I have given the impression that they were "News Sources" I am sorry. There are tons of blogs and sites that I think are interesting.
On the other hand, newspapers and periodicals that claim to be "News sources" are intirely different. I find my links no different the Huffington Post which the left link here all the time.

[quote=Keedy;214460]Very good response Steve. Let me remind people that 9-11 was not the first time that the towers were attacked. Perhaps if Clinton had spent as much time being serious about the terrorists as he did his own self gratifications, 9-11 would never have taken place. It has been proven that we had Bin Laden in our sights a few times but for some unexplainable reason, we never acted on it. I'm sure President Bush would not have been as queasy about given the right orders.[/qu

Removed, makes no sense to to argue it.

News Or Opinion?
 

I don't disagree on your assessment of the Huffington Post. It's a partisan blog like many others and to my knowledge doesn't hold itself to any particular standard of journalistic integrity. The blogs are like the Opinion page in a newspaper. Columnists are paid to create controversy, not report the news. Reporters on the other hand, along with the news editors that supervise them, are or at least should be held to a different standard. If they report something as fact, then it should be double- and triple-checked. News provided by one source should have verification from other sources. Reporters should not state or include opinion in their news stories, although I'll admit that sometimes the choice of words leave news readers with an opinion. Most established news organizations hold to these journalistic principles. What's important for us, the readers, is to understand is what stuff is someone's opinion and what is actually the news. Otherwise, it's almost certain that incorrect, or at least unbalanced, opinions will be formed or conclusions reached.

AMEN !!!!!

I think that if you want to link to an OPINION that is fine but indicate it as such !!!

Interesting read from Dionne Searcey of the Wall St Journal on this subject...

"Regardless, three days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, House and the Senate passed joint resolutions authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

It is amazing how easy it has become to be pompous and self righteous 8 years removed from that attack on our country !!!!

"The whole kerfuffle over disclosure skirts the legal elephant in the room in the most recent revelation: if our CIA’s shaggy assassins (trust us, we’ve seen those secret agent types on the Iraqi battlefield and they appear to never, ever shave) came across Osama bin Laden in a cave, can they legally kill him on the spot? "

PS: and this from todays NY Times....

"The program was designed in the frantic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks when President George W. Bush signed a secret order authorizing the C.I.A. to capture or kill operatives of Al Qaeda around the world. To be able to kill Osama bin Laden or his top deputies wherever they might be — even in cities or countries far from a war zone — struck top agency officials as an urgent goal, according to people involved in the discussions"

"Current and former officials said that the program was designed as a more “surgical” solution to eliminating terrorists than missile strikes with armed Predator drones, which cannot be used in cities and have occasionally resulted in dozens of civilian casualties.

“The Predator strikes have been successful, and I was pleased to see the Obama administration continue them,” said Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “This was another effort that was trying to accomplish the same objective.”

Mr. Bond would not discuss specific details about the terminated C.I.A. program."

Because the program never carried out any missions and because Congress had already signed off on the agency’s broad authorities after Sept. 11, the officials and some Republican legislators said the C.I.A. was not required to brief lawmakers on specifics of the program."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us...l.html?_r=1&hp




http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/...ver-finds-him/

Now add to this story the fact that just came out that the Democratic congressmen and women made this available to the PRESS first when they wrote the letter to the CIA !!!!

Is everyone ok with our congress doing this ? Why no outrage about this ?

...Because memories are short, and the only thing that counts is "me."

The number of things that have been trumped up as having importance are too numerous to list. However, they all have one thing in common - tomorrow's political gain. And both parties are guilty to some extent. What is sad is that "party faithful" follow the respective DNC/RNC press releases as if they constitute the Third Tablet. There is no possible consideration that the "party faithful" are being manipulated in as skilled a fashion as ever seen.

Being a member of a political party is a noble action. Being a political party fanatic is like being a fanatic about anything - blind and dangerous.
When party members don't run their party, but let themselves be dictated to by "party elite," then it's Berlin in 1936 all over again. And running your party is not just donating money and being a bobble-head yes-doll over every party-issued statement or position. Today's parties survive by virtue of the multitude who are willing to be blindly led for the sake of belonging to something which is bigger than themselves and chock full of celebrities.

There's been a lot of fingerpoint from Democrats at Republicans, and Republicans at Democrats. That accomplishes nothing. Much more effective fingerpointing would be by Democrats at Democratic leadership, and Republicans at Republican leadership. Then the parties would be "of the people" instead of "for the leadership.

Steve, for the purpose of the intent of my reply I quote from your last post:
 

"...When party members don't run their party, but let themselves be dictated to by "party elite," then it's Berlin in 1936 all over again...."

If anyone that enjoys reviewing the history of the rise and fall of the leaders of Germany in the late 30's and early 40's the similarities are coincidence for sure, but attest to your comment.

The Germans were in the deepest recession in history; their leader promised to bring it to an end; every German will be taken care of; there will be more jobs created than people who need them; the leadership was led by a charismatic, hypnotizing speaker; he surrounded himself with un questioned loyalists appointed by himself and on and on.

No intention to indicate our leadership is of the character of those in that day and age. Only that the modus operendi is almost a match. Coincidental, no doubt. But we the people should take note of history....it does repeat itself.....and the pied piper continues his march with nary a bleat from the followers.

btk

In response to your comments I decided to do some basic searches. I typed "legitimate news sources" into google and I did alot of clicking and reading. What I found interesting is the links that the news sources provide. You click onto a news source and then click on the author and then click on his columns and you will find which way he/she leans.
The lines get even blurrier when you click on "politics" because it gives many Blogs sites like Huffingon and Slate.
My final thought: Real facts should be verified, somewhat. But when you go to a news source that has broken down the news by category...they have "politics" as a separate subject. My feeling is that once the word "politics" is mentioned...facts get blurry.
Anyways, when I first joined this site, I was a little naive as I thought it was just a site that a bunch of guys gave political opinions. I then noticed that one poster here gives more links then he/she gives his own political thoughts. At first that angered me as I thought it was just a lazy way of getting your opinion out there without putting an effort into it. As I settled in here I started to do the "link thing" myself and not really thinking about the sources of the links. Anyways, here is a link with news sources...notices where the links take you when you click onto the political section:
http://www.headlinespot.com/

removed,, after all this, realized the original thread was lost.

Back To The Question At Hand
 

If the "program" that was so secret amounted to authorizing the CIA to go underground and then kill Osama bin Laden or other al Quesda leaders, I guess I'm left thinking what's the big deal? How different is this from the Navy Seals operating behind enemy lines during Viet Nam, with the mission to kill the leaders of the North Viet Nam army? How different from skilled snipers going underground, like during most wars, with the objective of killing enemy leaders? How different from the Air Force flying drones remotely and killing enemy operatives? How different from working with foreign organizations, like the Israeli Mussaud, to kill foreign enemies? How different from employing our own spies to kill enemies?

First, I can't imagine that Congress would have disapproved such a plan. Secondly, how is this different from what we've done in one way or another in many previous wars?

I guess I'm left wondering, if Dick Cheney and George Bush really felt that this type of program needed to be conducted secretly...WHY?

I think the whole thing is a diversion so we won't think about Pelosi and crew and their shenanigans. Dominating the news cycles, is a favorite past time in DC..

Since when does the Vice President issue orders to the CIA?
 

Letterman Top Ten.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MJeG...layer_embedded

Oh geez that was a good one :beer3:

My personal favs: #10,#8,#6, but #1 LOL