President Bush authorized the leak - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 11:57 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Quote:
Jillian80 - 4/7/2006 12:47 PM

Quote:
Jayhawk - 4/7/2006 12:20 PM

You lost! Get over it!!
That's so funny. I remember when Clinton won (the first time) and all the Republicans plastered 'Don't blame me, I voted for Bush' bumperstickers all over their cars. The Democrats came out with their rebuttal: 'He lost--get over it'. Ahh, the circle of life.
I never saw that...

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 11:59 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Quote:
lovemyc280 - 4/7/2006 12:49 PM

Quote:
That Guy - 4/7/2006 1:30 PM

Quote:
Jayhawk - 4/7/2006 1:20 PM

You lost! Get over it!!
An example of the intelligent debate you can expect from a Kansan.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805073396/103-8564800-3387035?v=glance&n=283155

One of my favorits!

Don't tell me you know how to read?

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #53 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 11:59 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
iNeon's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 2008 PT, 1998 neon--1965 VW 1200
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to iNeon Send a message via MSN to iNeon Send a message via Yahoo to iNeon
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

from what i understand, this isnt a whole lot different than the martha stewart thing, right?

rich/powerful people talk about different things than folks who drive chevy chevaliers, right?

martha spent some time locked down because she discussed classified information, right?

why is george different?

i also understand that this thing is dead in the water until january, whenever it goes to court?

This signature removed to protect the innocent.
iNeon is offline  
post #54 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 12:06 PM
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Actually, because she got caught lying about it.

We hold Martha Stewart to a higher standard than G.W.Bush you see.

Marsden is offline  
post #55 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 03:39 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Quote:
iNeon - 4/7/2006 1:59 PM

from what i understand, this isnt a whole lot different than the martha stewart thing, right?

rich/powerful people talk about different things than folks who drive chevy chevaliers, right?

martha spent some time locked down because she discussed classified information, right?

why is george different?

i also understand that this thing is dead in the water until january, whenever it goes to court?
No, its dead until we can kick the crooked GOP out of congress so we can start investigating these criminals - that would be November.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #56 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 04:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Damn criminals anyway!!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #57 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 04:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak


McClellan Bobs and Weaves, But Certainly Doesn't Leak
By Josh Marshall - April 7, 2006, 11:33 AM


This morning's White House gaggle, started at 10 AM ...

QUESTION: Did the President authorize the leak of intelligence information?

Scott McClellan: Terry, there is an ongoing legal proceeding, and our policy has been that we're not going to comment on it while it's ongoing. And that remains our policy. You will recall, if you go back to that time period that you are referencing, that we did declassify information relating to the -- in the National Intelligence Estimate, to provide that information to the public. That was provided on July 18th, I believe was the day, of 2003.

QUESTION: And since you put it in a context, is this the same information that Mr. Libby cites in his affidavit?

Scott McClellan: That's a question relating to an ongoing legal proceeding and, as you know, I can't get into commenting on that. We want to make sure that there is due process, that there is a fair trial, and that we don't do anything to jeopardize an ongoing legal proceeding.

They're going to be -- this is not the first filing that has been made in this legal proceeding. There will be additional filings, I'm sure, going forward. And I hope you can appreciate the policy -- the position that we've taken, which is that we're going to let that legal proceeding continue. And we're not going to comment on it while it's ongoing.

But I did want to remind you about that time period. You were here -- were you here? Yes, you were back right about that time. You and I started about the same time, if I recall, in our current positions -- well, it was going on at that time. There was a lot of debate and discussion going on about the intelligence that was part of the basis for going to war in Iraq. And we felt it was in the public interest to declassify information in the National Intelligence Estimate that was important to that discussion, and that's what we did at that time.

QUESTION: The President has been very critical of leakers on a number of subjects throughout his time. And if this information is true, that the President authorized the dissemination of this information, does he feel that it's appropriate for him to unilaterally -- and I know he has the legal authority to declassify information -- but it, to some people, gives an appearance that he may not have followed all of the procedures -- by letting other Cabinet members know, by letting the CIA Director know, things like that.

Scott McClellan: Again, that's asking about a question that is mentioned in this latest filing by Mr. Fitzgerald. And I can't get into confirming those issues because it's relating to an ongoing legal proceeding. But I think it's important -- I mean, you pointed out one aspect of this -- step back from the legal proceeding that's going on. You pointed out one important fact, the President has the authority to declassify the information.

And you also talked about leaks. The President has been critical about the leaking of classified information. And that view has not changed. Leaking classified information that could compromise our nation's security is a very serious matter. The President would never authorize disclosure of information that could compromise our nation's security. Remember, at the time -- go back to the time -- the National Intelligence Estimate is the collective judgment of our intelligence community. And there was a lot of debate going on about the intelligence at the time.

We went through a declassification process to provide that information to the public. We briefed you all on that information at that point in time, the portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that was made available publicly. There was nothing in that that was declassified that could compromise our nation's security. It was some historical context about some of the intelligence that was used in making the decision to go to war in Iraq.

QUESTION: So no harm done, is what you're saying?

Scott McClellan: Now the disclosing, the unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to a program like the terrorist surveillance program is harmful to our nation's security. It provides the enemy our play book, and the enemy can adapt and adjust when they learn about our tactics. And General Hayden has talked about how that is harmful to our nation's security. Others in the administration have talked about how that has been harmful to our nation's security. So there's a distinction --

QUESTION: So you're specifically saying no harm done --

Scott McClellan: -- there's a distinction between declassifying information that is in the public interest and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that could compromise our nation's security.

John, go ahead.

QUESTION: Scott, on March the 30th, I believe, last Thursday, Mr. Libby was spotted at the White House Mess. It just seems unusual that he would be coming back to the White House in this situation. Any ideas why he --

Scott McClellan: I don't know anything about that. I don't think so.

QUESTION: You don't think what?

Scott McClellan: I don't think he was here.

QUESTION: What would you do if I --

Scott McClellan: You spotted him?

QUESTION: I have a pretty good source I trust that did.

Scott McClellan: I'll check into it, John, but I don't think that's --

QUESTION: Alan Greenspan was here Thursday, March the 30th.

Scott McClellan: I don't think so, but I'll check. I'll check. I wasn't camped out at the Mess.

QUESTION: Scott, you raise an interesting point about the July 18th declassification of the NIE. A number of us had requested the NIE be declassified starting in -- sometime in mid June. Can you tell us by what date the actual declassification process of that executive summary had been completed? Because, obviously, given the discussion that's underway now, the date at which it was declassified is important.

Scott McClellan: Understood, but I think that that is a question that's trying to go back to the issues being brought up in this legal proceeding, and I'm not going to do that.

QUESTION: Scott, you were the one who raised the tactic, you declassified the document, and then it was released on July 18th. The relevant question here --

Scott McClellan: That's all public record. I'm just reminding -- I'm just reminding people in this room -- many of you covered us at that time, including yourself, some others didn't cover us during that time.

QUESTION: The important question is here, separate and apart from the case is, at what point was that considered to be a declassified document? Well, I'm just discussing the executive summary -- because I know at a number of times a number of us asked for it and were told that we couldn't have it because it was classified.

Scott McClellan: Right. That doesn't change what I just said.

QUESTION: That's right. At some moment there must have been a -- when things are declassified there's usually a stamp put on it, a date written on it, you know, "declassified as of" -- you've seen this many times. Could you find out for us what the date is of that declassification?

Scott McClellan: No, David, because you're asking me that in the context of the legal proceeding.

QUESTION: Also, to follow David's question, there's another issue there, which is, you make the point that the NIE was declassified for all of us -- and it's difficult to get to this issue without talking in the context of the trial -- but it would appear that for some of us, the information was provided privately earlier. So is the President comfortable with declassifying information and providing it to reporters on a private basis, earlier? The dates don't jive. There's a 10-day span between when the information was provided from Scooter Libby to Judy Miller --

Scott McClellan: You know I'm not going to get into commenting on it. There's no way I can comment --

QUESTION: I don't know of any way --

Scott McClellan: -- there's no way I can comment on that question without getting into issues relating to --

QUESTION: -- I don't know of any other way to ask the question.

Scott McClellan: Hang on, hang on. There's no way I can get into that without discussing issues relating to an ongoing legal proceeding. And I think you will appreciate that a policy has been established -- I didn't establish it, but I'm obligated to adhere to that policy.

QUESTION: I'm not sure what you mean by that, "a policy has been established"?

Scott McClellan: About not discussing an ongoing legal proceeding.

QUESTION: About not discussing ongoing legal proceeding.

Scott McClellan: That's right.

QUESTION: Okay. But you understand the question I'm trying to get to?

QUESTION: Who established it?

QUESTION: Before we even deal with that --

Scott McClellan: -- back to October 2003, and this has been in place for a long time by the White House.

QUESTION: You make the point that the information was provided to the press, generally, on July 18th. You say -- and you do it specifically, it seems to me, to say the President wanted the public aware of this and felt that it would not compromise national security.

Scott McClellan: It was in the public interest, because the debate that was going on at the time --

QUESTION: Ten days before that -- 10 days before that, this information was provided to another reporter, privately. So is the President comfortable with declassifying information and slipping it to a reporter before the rest of us are told?

Scott McClellan: Again, I think it was Kelly -- it may have been Terry when I was -- I think Kelly brought up the President's views on the leaking of classified information. And those views remain --

QUESTION: I'm not talking about --

Scott McClellan: -- those views remain the same.

QUESTION: I'm not suggesting --

Scott McClellan: No, no, understood.

QUESTION: I'm not suggesting a leak --

Scott McClellan: But you're trying to get into this issue that is being brought up in the context of the legal proceeding. I can't do that.

Go ahead, Martha.

QUESTION: I don't understand why you think David's question about the date you decided to declassify this has something to do with the legal proceedings. You're the one who is saying the public -- you wanted the public to know these facts in the NIE, that it was released July 18th. He's just --

Scott McClellan: Because it's an issue that's referred to in the filing by Mr. Fitzgerald --

QUESTION: Okay, purely let me talk about --

Scott McClellan: -- which go and look at. And that's what his question is getting at.

QUESTION: Well, okay, my question is getting at, then, the public disclosure of this. At what time did you decide on the public disclosure of this?

Scott McClellan: It was disclosed publicly on July 18, 2003.

QUESTION: Yes, but when did you start thinking, or when did you do the stamp about when that would be released? Was it before July 18th? When did you decide you wanted to release that to the public?

Scott McClellan: Well, you can go back and look. Look at the briefings. It went through a declassification process. And I think we talked about that, Martha.

QUESTION: When did that declassification process start?

Scott McClellan: It doesn't change what I just said to David.

Helen, go ahead.

QUESTION: But when did it start? When did the declassification process start to release it to the public on a broad scale?

Scott McClellan: I'm not getting into any time lines.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: The President denounced leaking in a couple of statements, and so forth, once at a news conference. He knew the truth. He allowed this charade to go on.

Scott McClellan: What do you mean "he knew the truth"?

QUESTION: He knew who had leaked --

Scott McClellan: That's not what the filing says. Go back and look at the filing. That's absolutely false.

QUESTION: I'm not asking about the filing. He knew who was doing the leaking. He knew why he declassified.

Scott McClellan: No, that is -- the leaking of what? That is absolutely false, Helen. That is absolutely false.

QUESTION: You mean he declassified this --

Scott McClellan: You're implying Valerie Plame's --

QUESTION: Why did he declassify this document more than just the -- he wanted somebody --

Scott McClellan: The reasons that portions of the NIE were declassified were the reasons I stated.

QUESTION: He knew about the exposure of a CIA agent --

Scott McClellan: Go back and look at the filing. Look at what Mr. Fitzgerald says in his filing.

QUESTION: I'm asking why did the President --

Scott McClellan: Mr. Fitzgerald in a filing -- Mr. Fitzgerald in his own words in his filing contradicts what you just said.

QUESTION: In his own --

Scott McClellan: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- in his own domain, he didn't ask anyone why?

Scott McClellan: Ann, go ahead.

QUESTION: To whom has President Bush delegated authority to declassify information, in general? The Vice President --

Scott McClellan: There's an executive order from March of 2003 that that's the most recent executive order on classification issues, and you might want to take a look at that.

QUESTION: Can I get a copy from you, please?

Scott McClellan: Yes, it's on our website, too.

QUESTION: And so the Vice President --

Scott McClellan: I think the latter part of March, 2003.

QUESTION: Thank you. And Vice President Cheney --

Scott McClellan: A couple more questions, then we've got to go to the week ahead. I've got to go to this roundtable.

QUESTION: Vice President Cheney is on that list?

Scott McClellan: But I'll be back. I know you all are looking forward to it, like I am. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

QUESTION: Vice President Cheney is on the list of people who have the authority to declassify?
Scott McClellan: Well, talk to -- you can talk to the Vice President's Office, but that's -- the executive order talks about the classification issues. But about his specific issues, talk to his office. There are some constitutional separation of powers issues involved there.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Should NIEs be declassified for political purposes?

Scott McClellan: For the public interest, is what I said, that the reason why the National -- portions of the National Intelligence Estimate were declassified. It was very much in the public interest. Peter, I think what you have to do is balance the public interest with protecting national security information. And at that point in time, what was disclosed in the National Intelligence Estimate provided important historical context for the public debate that was going on about the intelligence. And so that's why --

QUESTION: Why couldn't --

Scott McClellan: -- that's why it went through a process, and there was nothing in there that was being disclosed that would have compromised national security.

QUESTION: You know that your critics are saying this is done for political purposes -- Congresswoman Harman and others?

Scott McClellan: Well, and I talked about the distinction that is involved here. And Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that distinction are simply engaging in crass politics.

QUESTION: Why shouldn't someone assume that the NIE --

Scott McClellan: I've got to go to the week ahead. I'll be back. I'll go to the week ahead.

QUESTION: Get back to me.

QUESTION: In crass what?

Scott McClellan: Two of you. In crass politics.

Monday, April 10th, the President will make remarks on the global war on terrorism here in Washington. The focus will be on Iraq.

On Tuesday, we will be traveling. The President will visit the Lutheran Senior Service at Heisinger Bluffs in Jefferson City, Missouri. And he will participate in a conversation on the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Then we will go to Des Moines, and the President will visit the Wesley Acres Senior Center. And he'll make -- following that visit, he'll make a statement on the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Then that evening, he -- or that afternoon; I don't have the exact times, we'll get that to you later -- he attends Iowans for Nussle Reception in Des Moines.

Then on Wednesday, we'll be at the White House. The President, as we've already announced, will welcome the President of Ghana here and have a meeting with him. And he will make remarks on the Medicare prescription drug benefit in Annandale, Virginia.

On Thursday, the President will make remarks to Small Business Week Conference in Washington. And then he will depart for Camp David, where he will remain until Sunday. I think much of the larger Bush family will be coming to Camp David to celebrate Easter with the President and Mrs. Bush.

All right. See you all this afternoon.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #58 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 11:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Quote:
JimSmith - 4/7/2006 10:10 AM

Quote:
Botnst - 4/6/2006 9:20 PM

Quote:
old300D - 4/6/2006 6:43 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 4/6/2006 3:04 PM

how many of us know that the President and VP are authorized by statute to declassify anything without having to go through the usual process? This is why President Carter wasn't in any trouble when he spontaneously declassified stealth technology during his unsuccesful reelection campaign.

Look it up.

B
According to the Washington Post article on this same news story, the "authorization" constituting de-classification is a point of current legal contention.
So the law is unsettled on that point and therefore we must presume that A: The accused is guilty as heck or B: we wait for more information before making a judgment.
The "law" is not intended to be used in the manner it was used, and this is what is so offensive. Bush bobbed his head at the American people and declared he was going after these leakers and they would be punished. He was flat out lying. He and Cheney were the leakers and they authorized the leaking. For political gain, by lying to the American people (Bot, have you come to the conclusion he lied yet?) about the circumstances of leaked information from a highly classified report.

As for the authorization to declassify, which may or may not be absolute, if it was excercised why did Bush, and why does the CIA, the document originator and original derivative classifier of the information, refer to the document days, weeks and months later as a leaked classified document (I believe the CIA still refers to it that way)? Because the scheme being used to manipulate Americans required the data to be classified at the time of the leak, or, apparently, its effectiveness as a tool to manipulate the minds of the American populace would have been diluted.

This guy is a liar. Period. Nothing he says can possibly be taken at face value. He is a poison to the spirit of America. We have become the ugliest Americans in our history at his hands. He needs to be impeached. Jim
Well, as long as you say he's a liar, how can anybody disagree?

I am so hazy on the timeline that I have no knowledge of who did what, with what, and when.

IIRC, there was some sort of brouhaha going on about whether there actually was intelligence that indicated WMD in Iraq and so forth. The Whitehouse partially declassified some material that indicated that the various sources of intel were in agreement that Iraq had WMD, etc

Today on C-SPAN they had one of those excruciating press briefings where the press people ask loaded questions and the flack redefines everything to his favor and then answers a question different from the loaded question. That goes on for an hour or so and then the news people make some kind of crystalball pronouncement of, "The Whitehouse said..." as though the Whitehouse has lips.

Anyway, the flack was asked several different ways about the declassification timeline, apparently he used the word, "declassified" on a certain date that post-dated the authorization to release info given to Libby by Bush, according to Libby. The flack tried to obfuscate the answer by conflating the terms, "declassify" with "release of formerly classified material" which the press just was not buying at all. The flack refused to get into the details citing the inappropriateness of discussing a criminal investigation (of all the BS I saw in that briefing, that was about the only statement that made a lick of sense).

From the bits I have read today, the president does have complete authority to either classify or declassify whatever information he judges appropriate. Certain Secretaries of Departments can, also. Beneath the secretaries and within the Whitehouse there are designated committees to determine whether to classify or declassify.

Here's a worthy question for all of us to think about. Which would you rather have in control of classification decisions, elected officials, appointed officers, or career bureaucrats? Whichever one we choose to invest will have tremendous influence over every aspect of intelligence and thus law enforcement and the military. Who should run the intelligence community, elected folks or career folks?

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #59 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-07-2006, 11:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

Quote:
That Guy - 4/7/2006 1:13 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 4/6/2006 5:04 PM

how many of us know that the President and VP are authorized by statute to declassify anything without having to go through the usual process? This is why President Carter wasn't in any trouble when he spontaneously declassified stealth technology during his unsuccesful reelection campaign.

Look it up.

B

Like I said, he could bite the head off a baby and some would still defend it.

I agree that there is a contention that he has the "absolute" right to declassify anything, although its never been done before without the coordination with the agency that classifies it so noone is really sure.

Although I doubt Bush has the right to declassify things without telling anyone he's declassified it and then launch an investigation into the leaking of declassified information along with the subsequent jailing of a reporter that disseminated this declassified information. Something tells me that if this is true he is at a minimum guilty of withholding evidence and most likely obstruction of justice (not saying anything while a reporter was jailed). In my own opinion, I think a case for fraud could also be made.
It has been done without consultation. See the Carter incedent. Also both Johnson and Nixon declassified stuff all of the time. So did Roosevelt. I don't think that either Truman or Eisenhower did, nor did Ford, IIRC. I don't know about Reagan or Bush I. I don't know if Clinton himself did but I do recall that the military and intel communities both hated dealing with the Whitehouse because they didn't find the functionaries in teh Whitehouse trust-inspiring. There was an awful lot written about that during both of Clinton's admins.

Does that make it "RIGHT"? I don't know for sure. Politicians like to think that what is good for them is good for the country, but they are usually wrong in think that way. I do not think taht I want to invest any appointee or career civil service with greater power than the President or Vice President. To me, that is much more frightening for the safety of the Republic than some silly-assed politician trying to score political points. Doesn't absolve the politician of blame.

It just helps to have a healthy perspective on the whole issue, don't you think?

Now lets discuss Mr Carter's revelation, during a presidential campaign, that we had radar-cloaking aircraft that could penetrate any air defense. Would we all not agree that was a terrible revelation to make, exposing pilots to unnecessary danger in order to score political points?

Why was he not impeached? Should he have been? Under what charges?
Botnst is offline  
post #60 of 80 (permalink) Old 04-08-2006, 10:52 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
RE: President Bush authorized the leak

I think we have a filibuster going on. Probably just as well.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome