Sign up for Lincoln Chafee’s Brown University Seminars

-

chafee brown.jpg
I would rather have Lincoln Chafee on board our team as a Distinguished Scholar at the New America Foundation, but Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies beat us. (We have Gary Hart with us. Maybe we can arrange a sharing agreement?)
Starting in January 2007, Senator Chafee — a Brown alum — will be a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Watson Institute — and this blogger highly recommends that students, donors, academics, staff soak up what the Senator has to say about America’s shaky standing in the world, missteps in the Middle East, and the need to invest in some serious “constructive” revamping and improvement of our key international institutions.
Last night, when I attended a truly star-studded evening of experience-sobered and globally concerned realists at the Nixon Center‘s Distinguished Service Awards Dinner, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft reflected on the complexity of real challenges today and the pettiness of politics and stated “if we did not have the United Nations today, we could not build one.”
More on this later — but Scowcroftism (which David Frum has derided in the past) and Chafeeism are clearly what this country needs more of.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

28 comments on “Sign up for Lincoln Chafee’s Brown University Seminars

  1. rich says:

    That’s an excellent description of a good man. I’ve noticed some of those traits, and couldn’t have described them better.
    Chafee should never be disrespected for any of those personality traits–and I dont’ think he has been. He also hasn’t been demonized.
    However, ogden wrote:
    **”Well, besides this year’s hostile political climate, and not being a natural politician, Chafee’s campaign seemed slack”** –you’re somewhat off-base.
    Those were factors, but none decisive–esp in Rhode Island. It was Chafee’s positions, lack of a strong stand, and refusal to actively check Bush or hold him accountable–THAT was the cause of his loss. Rhode Island was a gimme for a Chafee, even in a hostile climate.
    Ogden wrote:
    **”listeners could hear why nonetheless it was to the benefit of the whole country to have a honest, thoughtful, patient, calm voice considering policy in the Senate”**
    Critical to note: well-meaning, thoughtful voices have clearly, especially of late:
    a) elided the issue;
    b) given Bush a free pass on lying, when in point of fact, ALL the evidence indicates that Bush was fully briefed on WMDs & many other issues (Katrina anyopne?) but chose to LIE to the American People about that. Meaning that:
    c) WHAT KIND OF AN HONEST MAN evades or denies those lies and that breach of trust?!?!?
    Having these virtues and traits DOES NOT JUSTIFY failure to act in response to EXTREME provocation, nor failure to uphold the Constitution.
    In short, there’ve been PLENTY of honest, patient, good men who do not take sufficient action to check malicious acts. For the wrong reasons.
    The utterly untenable notion that “Bush genuinely believed Saddam had WMDs; or that Iraq was a threat” is just disgraceful. NO ONE is demonizing Chafee. It’s just that thoughtfulness alone is useless, without action that puts real thoughtfulness and true patience into practice.
    Senators are not paid to capitulate their Constitutional obligations to the Executive. Patience is a tool and only a virtue if it earns the respect and some movement from the other guy; versus Bush, it’s just an appeasement that compromises Senatorial allegience/obligation to the country and the Aemrican People.
    You say all those traits are a benefit to the whole country. The whole country would benefit if patient, good, thoughtful men would recognize what the Constitution says in black and white: Congress has the Power to Declare War. There are dozens of cheap, easy excuses given as to why it’s not done that way–none of which have any integrity or substantive foundation. It’s just easier for our youth to parrot received excuses/rationales.

    Reply

  2. ogden says:

    Lincoln Chafee is moderate in both his manner and his views. He is thoughtful, sincere, honorable, shy, and unassuming, while also being apolitical and exceptionally guileless. His supporters see this rare combination as being deliberative, reflective —someone interested in idea-driven governance rather than ego-driven politics. His opponents see it as being oddly, opaquely clueless. Maybe it’s all of the above. (But I see no constructive purpose in demonizing him as a war criminal or a dumbo. Especially since he’s no longer in office. Over heated rhetoric is just hot air.)
    On The Daily Show, viewers could see just how a quiet man could be drowned out in DC’s flashy sound-byte media-scape. He freezes on camera. On Terry Gross’s Fresh Air interview (ww.npr.org, check it out), listeners could hear why nonetheless it was to the benefit of the whole country to have a honest, thoughtful, patient, calm voice considering policy in the Senate (a place that aspires to being a deliberative body). After all, Chafee was the only senator of either party who went to the CIA to look at the war evidence for himself. He took his duty seriously; he diligently did his job without grandstanding about it. In any case, I think supporters and critics can agree that, being shy and soft-spoken, he was cut from different cloth than most politicians.
    Why did he lose? Well, besides this year’s hostile political climate, and not being a natural politician, Chafee’s campaign seemed slack, inconsistent, and run on a shoestring. There didn’t seem to be a real message, it was all over the map. It was amateur. You had to wonder, deep down, how much he really wanted to win. He was diffident to the end I guess, a shame.
    In contrast, Sheldon Whitehouse has always had palatable, focused hunger for power. His campaign was slick and on-message, with a flood of fancy national DNC commercials. Whitehouse did know that if he kept his mouth shut (no more entitled “I was bred to serve” quotes), and kept silently smiling for the cameras, he could be the state’s next senator. Now he is. For better and worse, he will be many things Chafee was not. He surely will be more at ease in the public eye.
    The election is now water under the bridge. I hope Whitehouse grows into his new role as a public servant and in the coming years demonstrates patience and discernment in the senate. And I hope as Chafee charts his new course at Brown, although no longer an elected representative, he continues to develop his thoughtful views on foreign policy and continues to share his ideas with the public.

    Reply

  3. Pissed Off American says:

    It’d be interesting if Steve would detail what he sees from the inside in Chafee, that close political observers can’t see from the outside.
    But I guess that won’t happen.
    Posted by rich
    Don’t hold your breath. He told me, months ago, that he would enlighten me as to why he holds that posturing AIPAC suckling Reid in such high esteem. I’m still waiting.
    BTW, Rich, it is refreshing to see someone else besides myself that is unimpressed by the belated outrage and misgivings of the Bush lackeys that are finally jumping ship. Powell, Wilkerson, Leverett, Chaffee, the list gets longer. All of them did little or nothing to check the abuse of power of this executive Administration, yet now they seek to distance themselves from the carnage. Bullshit, they are culpable and complicit, and cowards for their untimely posturing. This nation and our freedoms have never been so threatened from within, and these people are willing participants in treason.

    Reply

  4. rich says:

    It’d be interesting if Steve would detail what he sees from the inside in Chafee, that close political observers can’t see from the outside.
    But I guess that won’t happen.
    The oft-repeated high regard for Chafee would, I’d guess, have some basis (putting aside the potential for hype/ gossip/ repetition to establish/ warp/ maintain a reputation).
    I’d heard good things for a long time.
    The specific nature of that reputation doesn’t jibe with the public face of the Senator, or the plain record. It’s difficult to reconcile the personal integrity and good judgment so remarked upon with the party-line votes, refusal to speak out publicly and failure to act as a check on the Executive, and virtually imperceptible public statements on points of disagreement.
    Habeas corpus? Torture? Spectre’s NSA “solution.” The MCA? We don’t need to run through the whole list, but even on relatively non-controversial issues–there’s no action, no stand for modest principle: the EPA website has been scrubbed of facts, the EPA library’s been deleted/shut down, and James Hanson has Government Minders. Very Orwellian. But you can’t get a Republican Senator to stand up for limited government. What gives? I mean REALLY, the American People deserve some insight on this.
    Loyalty is a good thing; should loyalty to party trump loyalty to country? Should bringing home the bacon trump killing the earmark system? Should RI bases trump insisting on a sane foreign policy? Can you/anyone ‘be reasonable’ with an unreasonable and unresponsive partner(Bush)?
    Isn’t it a mark of poor judgment to continue to operate that way, knowing THERE IS NO cooperation or responsiveness to be had from the Bush admin? Defn of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result . . .

    Reply

  5. Drew says:

    I don’t get this whole “Chafee is a genius” thing. People I know who interacted with him on the Hill (admittedly from the other side of the aisle) used to mock him as a clueless idiot. I’m still waiting for some sign they were wrong but essentially he was some Rhodes Island rich guy who was handed a Senate seat and then spent his life betraying his own moderate/liberal ideals in the name of party loyalty.

    Reply

  6. rich says:

    @ p.lukasiak>>Dec. 16, 2006 10:38 AM
    wrote:
    **I don’t really think that a “stronger, more vocal” stance would have made any difference. I mean, I don’t know how much “stronger” you can get in opposition to Bush than saying publicly that he could not, and would not, vote for Bush in the 2004 election.**
    Bush wouldn’t’ve yielded; but murmuring you won’t be voting for Bush doesn’t come within shouting distance of ‘strong.’ That merely states what Chafee would do as a voter–it elides the issue and says nothing about what Chafee believes/should do or says AS A SENATOR.
    Standing on the floor of the Senate and demanding a modest portion of accountability and change of direction in Iraq–THAT would be “stronger,” paul lukasiak. A Republican filibustering FOR the Rule of Law would be oh, so refreshing. It would EVEN be BIPARTISAN–but then, Republicans don’t HAVE to be bipartisan–I guess that’s only an obligation for Democrats.
    **Chafee remains personally popular in Rhode Island — and it wasn’t his positions that lost him the election. It was the “(R)” next to his name on the ballot.**
    I saw Chafee’s concession speech: in which he blamed his loss on “a tidal wave of anti-Bush/anti-Iraqwar anger.” It exposed considerable blindness to both the Senatorial and personal responsibility at play. It was patently false: AS A Senator, Chafee bears considerable responsibility for the lack of checks on the Executive. You don’t just cast your vote and disappear. This Go-Along default position is the mark of complicity.
    I respect Chafee, always have, and his preferred mode of operating. This is not some fluttering House of Lords, emasculated for some usurpating King; nor does the job or responsiblity end when votes are cast in the Senate.
    If he wasn’t sure what to say, he could have had Robert Byrd write his speeches.
    But Rhode Island voters did NOT vote against the (R) column. They voted against Chafee. Because he wasn’t a strong enough barrier to abuse of power. Chafee’s several agreeable votes didn’t rise to an adequate/the required response to circumstances.
    Were folks angry w/ Bush? Of course. They were also angry at the Go-Along CongressFolk who thought their services weren’t required beyond a vote and a murmur.
    I’d always heard good things about Chafee, long before Clemons started this blog. But at a certain point, you wanna see the actual substance that supports that reputation.
    At a certain point, politesse has its costs. Respect is always important, but the whole damn country knew YEARS ago that Bush was nonresponsive/ nondemocratic in refusing any input, any advice, any adjustment, any compromise. Given that profound disrespect for everything between God, the Constitution, and the American People, civility is just appeasement. It’s for serfs. Chafee paid that cost for not adjusting to adequately fill his role. Given that refusal to listen, the assumption to “Decider,” it’s more than reasonable to ask CongressFolk to take “stronger, more vocal” stands. Given Rhode Island’s electoral proof, it’s more than justified to point out that voters rejected Chafee, and his road of quiet complicity. If you can’t get your message out, in this day and age, you’re not trying. So passing it off on “voter anger at Bush) is b.s.
    He seems like he’s got a lot of integrity, and I’ll take Clemons’ word on the value of his substantive policies–I’d always heard good thingsabout Chafee. But at what point does he say “Enough”? At some point, tactics have to be adjusted because the costs are too high; the violations too egregious. The Senate is not a collections of “Good Germans.” It is not enough to say “We Senators were just doing our jobs.” No one stopped Bush. That doesn’t make it ok, nor acceptable. Rhode Island voters know this, and that’s why Chafee paid a price.
    No one stopped Bush. If not the Senate, then who?

    Reply

  7. Matt says:

    I think Chafee could have won the election if he’d come out more strongly and been more vigourously outspoken. But really that kind of behavior is not in his nature. He’s modest, unassuming and sofspoken, almost to the point of seeming anxious and self-conscious in public. Did anyone watch his Daily Show clip? Chafee may not have really wanted to be a Senator in the first place. Remember this is a guy who sort of turned his back on mainstream society after graduating from Brown, to become a blacksmith at horse-racing tracks. And he was appointed to the Senate to begin with…

    Reply

  8. p.lukasiak says:

    Huummm….maybe Steve can tell us what the deal is with this..seems the WH blocked his fellow NAF member, Flynt Leveretts article in the NYT about how we should be engaging Iran…seems Elliot Abrams is behind it.
    If you read the original paper on which Leverett based his op-ed, you will find what appears to be new details about the extent of Iranian co-operation in the “War on Terror” prior to the “axis of evil” speech, and how Iran was willing to strike a “grand bargain” with the US that included an end to its nuclear program and support for Hezbollah in exchange for security guarantees (in other words, pretty much the same deal we made with Khaddafi in Libya — and Khaddafi is nuts). I suspect that it is this kind of information that the White House does not want appearing on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times — i.e. further confirmation that the Bush regime has completely blown the “war on terror”.

    Reply

  9. p.lukasiak says:

    A stronger and more vocal stance could’ve earned Chafee a victory, and he’d still be in the Senate, still able to do some good.
    I don’t really think that a “stronger, more vocal” stance would have made any difference. I mean, I don’t know how much “stronger” you can get in opposition to Bush than saying publicly that he could not, and would not, vote for Bush in the 2004 election.
    Chafee remains personally popular in Rhode Island — and it wasn’t his positions that lost him the election. It was the “(R)” next to his name on the ballot. IMHO, if Chafee had run as a Democrat, he’d have been re-elected in a landslide.

    Reply

  10. Jacob Matthan says:

    Lincoln Chafee voted against the Executive Branch ONLY when he knew his vote would make no material difference.
    Did he vote against funding the troops when they were indiscriminately killing innocent Iraqis?
    Where was his outrage against the Abu Ghraib issues?
    Where was his outrage against the Guantanamo torture?
    Where was his outrage against warrantless wire tappings of Americans?
    Where was his outrage against Bush’s refusal to appear under oath before the 9/11 commission?
    Where was his outrage against the perpetrators of the Valerie Plame scandal?
    Should I go on?
    Lincoln Chafee may have voted against the war, but he supported it to the hilt in every other way.
    He, like almost every other Senators, including Hilary Cliton, are war criminals – and that goes for non-Senator Madeline Albright as well.
    We foreigners do not have short memories related only to the past and next episodes of Idols!

    Reply

  11. rich says:

    Steve,
    I agree with and appreciate your earlier post on Chafee regarding the need to support moderates within the Republican Party, to keep it from tipping entirely to the extreme and to maintain internal dialogue.
    And Chafee rightly spoke to Repubs behind the scenes (assuming), in part to achieve multiple objectives, temperately.
    Could you speak to the point of diminishing returns on this? At what point do CongressFolk become more vocal? Not strident, but frank and open in the service of getting through.
    I ask because in Chafee’s case, mere self-preservation should have motivated a stronger stance against the perfidy and policy of Mr. Bush.
    It seems clear that Chafee’s divergent votes and virtually imperceptible opposition to Bush/Frist/Hastert (on some issues) haven’t impressed your commenters & other observers.
    A stronger and more vocal stance could’ve earned Chafee a victory, and he’d still be in the Senate, still able to do some good.
    Given the notorious intransigence of the Bush Admin, did Chafee have any influence anyway? The idea is there’s a gain in delivering one’s concerns behind the scenes. Was that ever the case w/Bush, and was Chafee different in that regard?
    Would Chafee being more obviously vocal have moved the nation, the Repub Party, and Bush, towards tackling the reality in Iraq soooner?
    In hindsight, Steve, do you think Chafee would have survived the election had he done so?
    Civil discourse & constructive engagement is great. It’s important. But I disagree that Senators should be walking-on-eggshells demure or shrinking violets when there’s so much at stake. Their voices are needed by the electorate, citizens, GIs.
    Lessons? Your guy took a hit because of his approach. Is pulling one’s punches in what should be public debate always the wisest course of action?

    Reply

  12. liz says:

    Steve I suppose you can see America is still quite pissed off at the Do Nothings, even the ones that did something. Yeah, thanks to Chafee we got one down( Bolton) but thanks to Chafee not being principled enough on other issues we still have this war.( And not just him.) The war is the problem and it will continue to slide anyone wearing the scarlet R down the hill of public opinion. I think people in think tanks need to stop thinking. I think we need a new president, vp and entire cabinet. I think that would do more to boost America than anything else anyone can do. If America fails to remove these clowns at the top, why should I bother to follow the law either?

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Huummm….maybe Steve can tell us what the deal is with this..seems the WH blocked his fellow NAF member, Flynt Leveretts article in the NYT about how we should be engaging Iran…seems Elliot Abrams is behind it.
    I think this a very bad sign on how this adm is determined to ignore all imput on Iraq options.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    This is off topic but relates to politicans like Chafee who is honest, at least I have never seen or hear anything to indicate he is like the Ney’s or DeLays or other pond scum in DC.
    This deal in London is just really too much…a prime example of the political criminal class….can’t reveal wrongdoing because it jepordize national security?…in a pig’s eye!
    We have to start making honesty, not party, the first requirement in those we elect…or the criminal enterprises that make up most goverments right now will be the end of all of us.
    If it is this bad in the UK imagine what is under the rug here in the US.
    The Guardian: “A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain’s security if the inquiry was allowed to continue. The remarkable intervention was announced by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who took the decision to end the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into alleged bribes paid by the company to Saudi officials, after consulting cabinet colleagues. In recent weeks, BAE and the Saudi embassy had frantically lobbied the government for the ….continued at
    http://www.warandpiece.com/

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    I have bashed the best of them for being too late with too little….but I don’t put Chafee in that catagory.
    I like him and think he has his head on straight and he is, unlike so many politicans, actually thinking about the good of this country seems to me.
    A lot of people have criticized Hagel also but the fact is, he too has been speaking out against the Bush policies in Iraq for two years.
    Going against the herd always get my respect, particulary given how hard it is to do that in this gang mentality political system, so I give Chafee a gold star for his efforts.

    Reply

  16. kedger says:

    thanks for the tip. my daughter is at brown and i am passing it along.

    Reply

  17. Steve Clemons says:

    don — appreciate your critique. blogs move in different directions. in my view, this blog continues to be about defining key national security and defense policy options and about revealing some of the stuff that goes on inside DC that some don’t see or have access to. I don’t promise ideological predictability — not interested in it…. but appreciate your need to move on if that is what you need to do. best, steve clemons

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    maybe this is why you don ‘t like him
    Chafee, chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Middle East, is among a handful of senators who often dissent from measures calling for support of Israel and sanctions against its enemies. Supporters call Chafee a courageous voice of independence from the pro-Israel lobby who is willing to prod Israel to take difficult actions needed for peace.
    They praise Chafee for having warned that a U.S. failure to press Israel firmly enough toward peace would risk the election of Hamas — a party advocating Israel’s destruction — to lead the Palestinian Authority. Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January.
    Critics say Chafee’s record puts him outside the mainstream of strong U.S. support for Israel. The senator replied last week that his “dogged” support of the peace process is in Israel’s long-term best interests.

    Reply

  19. ... says:

    Jacob- Lincoln Chafee was the only rep to vote against the war in iraq and you would like to call him a war criminal?? i think you are missing something.

    Reply

  20. Zathras says:

    I’ve derided Scowcroftism myself in the past, as a kind of diluted Kissingerian realism without the imagination.
    I’d give Steve the point, though, with respect to the less widely discussed type of Scowcroftism — the devotion to orderly process in the making of foreign policy. Scowcroft was a very good chief of staff for national security policy in two administrations, making sure that everyone got his voice heard and that the President was aware of all the options that his national security officials were aware of, which is the most a chief of staff can do.
    The current Bush administration has never had anything like that. In fact, I don’t know that there is any close precedent for the way Bush’s team makes and implements foreign policy decisions. Reagan, who turned over NSAs frequently and had some seriously substandard people fill that position, might have come the closest, at least with respect to the specific line of policy decisions that produced the Iran-Contra scandal. But Reagan had strong people running both the Pentagon and the State Department; Iran-Contra was not typical of the way his administration operated most of the time. Bush’s administration, with a weak NSA, a weak Secretary of State, a very strong Defense Secretary and a Vice President apparently with veto power at least over policy decisions and even appointments, represents something new. It couldn’t operate the way it has with an NSA who did the things Scowcroft did. Which, I suppose, is why it has never had one.

    Reply

  21. p.lukasiak says:

    Don, if you think that voting against the AUMF isn’t “being strong when its hard to be strong” — and if you think that ensuring that Bolton was not given a permanent appointment to the UN ambassadorship after Hagel jumped ship isn’t “being strong when its hard to be strong”, and if you think that when a Republican Senator says PUBLICLY that he will not vote for the incumbent Republican President running for re-election isn’t “being strong when its hard to be strong”….
    well, then, what the FUCK are your standards?
    Lincoln Chafee had one HUGE flaw — he was a vote for the GOP to retain leadership of the Senate. That’s about it. His voting record may not have been perfect according to your opinion — but is anyones?

    Reply

  22. don says:

    Sorry, Steve. I came to this blog on Day One when Josh mentioned it. I was impressed. Recently, it has begun to run downhill — fast. When elected officials do not stand up and vote against bad policy, they don’t get a “bye” when they are no longer subject to the party’s whip in the House or Senate. They either are strong when it is hard to be strong, or they get no pat on the back.
    It’s time to ignore them for a few years. They had their chance to influence policy in a substantive way when in power and they blew it.
    The very last thing this nation needs right now are people who are going to bloviate “on the cheap.” That perfectly describes Chafee.

    Reply

  23. Arun Gupta says:

    If I believe and remember “Fresh Air” on NPR correctly, Sen. Chafee voted against the war in Iraq (the only Republican Senator to do so) and voted against the Bush tax cuts.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6619100
    As far as I know, Chafee voted against the Military Commissions Act that killed habeas corpus.

    Reply

  24. p.lukasiak says:

    gg… that was MY line! And anyway, this wasn’t sucking up — this was an honest tribute to a guy who Steve had been sucking up to in the past! 🙂
    Its a measure of Senator Chafee’s character that he took an academic appointment, rather than do what other defeated GOP senators are doing…. hitting the lecture circuit, becoming lobbyists or other means of exploiting their access to members of congress, or trying to negotiate deals with cable news networks as a “screamer/resident expert”

    Reply

  25. Jacob Matthan says:

    Steve,
    I think you hate to admit to say that you could be wrong.
    Chafee was part of the do-nothing-roll-over Congress. I disliked him intensely when I heard him is some of the many hearings on C-Span. He played to “his audience” which above all was about supporting the mandman – Bush.
    Is what you want to do is to promote that attitude.
    Tell me when Lincoln Chafee says he was WRONG to blanket support Bush and this horrific world that we live in thanks to HIM!
    (Yes, as much as you refuse to admit it, Lincoln Chafee is responsible for over 600000 dead innocent Iraqis. He is as much a war criminal as Bush and his cohorts. And do you want to promote a war criminal?)
    Then I think you can start to push him as your MAN. Till then I do not think much of your attitude about Lincoln Chafee.
    I am still probably the only one who challenged Wes Clarke when he claimed that the US had a professional army. I personally think the US army sucks from top to bottom. It is corrupt and self serving just as much as Lincoln Chafee! (But then, Americans MUST support their troops, even when they are bunch of hoodlums and killers!)
    I am quite surprised that a great analyst like yourself has such a large blind spot – Lincoln Chafee!

    Reply

  26. Steve Clemons says:

    gq — lol…if I suck up to someone tomorrow, it will be someone who I think will play a key part in saving the world. 😉
    steve

    Reply

  27. gq says:

    Who are you going to suck up to tomorrow, Steve. :o).
    You think there is anything Chafee can do to help reshape the GOP?

    Reply

  28. PUBLIUS says:

    Congratulations to Senator Chafee, and congratulations to Brown for this wise appointment. This is a good marriage.
    Let us not forget that the United Nations was a product of a grand, progressive vision for the world held by many dismissed as “utopians” at the time of its founding and which many putative “realists” continue to seek to undermine. There is such a thing as pragmatic pursuit of the ideal – sorely lacking in current Washington discourse regarding the disaster in Iraq on the left (disdain for the pragmatic) and on the right (disdain for the ideal).

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *