Bush Legacy
In less than 24 hours, Bush will no longer be president of the United States, which all I can say is good riddance. He was without question one of the worse presidents in US history, although I am skeptical to say he is the worst ever, rather I would say he is the worst in the last 100 years. In the 1800s you had some pretty bad presidents such as James Buchanan who advocated the expansion of slavery and you also had several cases of unprovoked attacks on foreign countries such as the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, War of 1812 etc. However, attacking countries unprovoked was the norm in the 1800s and widely accepted and likewise done by many other countries. So in the absolute sense he maybe wasn't the worst, but when one considers how much we have evolved as a society over the past 100 years, saying he is the worst ever in a relative sense, is something I would wholeheartedly agree with. So below I will summarize his legacy. Obviously only time will tell how he is judged, but I highly doubt he will be vindicated. If anything, I wouldn't surprised if he is judged far more harshly in 30 years when the classified documents become available and the full extent of how bad the government was is revealed. Even Nixon at least did some good things as president, whereas with Bush, it is hard to find anything good he did. While he may have done a few good things, they were mostly minor policies and almost every major issue, he was on the wrong side of the issue.
Foreign Policy
On September 11, 2001, the United States faced a horrible attack in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Much of the world was sympathetic to the US and even many countries that normally had cool relations with the US were fully behind it. As one French paper read "we are all Americans". This was a time when Bush could have united the world behind the US, but instead of uniting the world, his reckless foreign policy increased anti-Americanism to all time highs and brought public opinion of the US to all time lows globally. Whatever sympathy the world had for the US after 9/11, he did everything to ensure it disappeared. The decision to attack Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Ladin was the right one which even Obama fully supports. However, rather than going after Bin Ladin who the culprit behind 9/11, Bush became focused on Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator, but had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed absolutely no threat to the US or any of its allies. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Bush used blatant lies to try and make the case for invading Iraq. Traditional allies like Canada, Germany, and France who refused to sign on, were threatened with retaliation and made clear that there was no accepting of those taking different views. After failing to get a UN resolution, the US went and attacked Iraq anyway which was a violation of international law. An attack on a sovereign country is only permissible under two circumstances: it is in legitimate self-defence or it has UN authorization and in which case Iraq met neither. After Iraq was invaded, the US had no plan to deal with the aftermath. Instead Bush had this delusional idea the Iraqis would welcome them as liberators. Instead, the country has fallen into chaos, terrorism has risen, and as bad as Saddam Hussein was, in many ways Iraq is even worse off. This also costed massive amounts of money that could have been much better spent elsewhere. He also showed blatant disregard for both the Geneva Convention and the US constitution. Whether it be Abu Gharib or Guantanamo Bay, these were both examples of blatant disregard for both the above. In fact the whole reason Guantanamo Bay was located in Cuba, not on US soil, is because such place would violate the US constitution and would be ordered shut down by the courts. As awful as terrorists are, every person deserves the right to a fair trial, legal counsel, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even the most brutal serial killers are given this and so should terorrists. I don't condone terrorism and nor do most others, however, mistakes can happen and people can be accused who are not guilty, which is why the US constitution has the position of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial. In addition, one does not defeat terrorism by descending to their level. In the meantime, rather than hunting down Osama Bin Ladin, he is still free. In the mean time civil rights at home have been frequently disregarded and he created a culture of fear and division
Domestic Policy
If Bush was a disaster on the foreign policy, he was equally bad on domestic policy. In fact it was domestic policy more so than foreign policy that turned public opinion in the US so strongly against him and why he has one of the lowest approval ratings ever of an outgoing president. In 2000, the US had a strong economy and a surplus. Under the Bush presidency, the national debt doubled for $5 billion to $10 billion and their current account deficit also increased. Bush advocated deficit financed tax cuts mainly targeted towards the wealthy. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not wrong in themselves, but should only be done if the country can afford to do so, which clearly the US could not and tax cuts should go to those of lower and middle income Americans before the wealthy. He created the patriot act which violated many Americans rights and wiretapped phones without a warrant which also is a violation of the US constitution. The sheer incompetence of his presidency was no more evident than during Hurricane Katrina were the response of a terrible natural disaster was slow and inadequate. Likewise, his love for de-regulation partly played a role in creating our current economic mess. Excessive regulation is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean you blindly de-regulate everything, rather it is about balance which the Bush administration lacked. While the economic downturn is not solely Bush's fault, his actions did more to make it worse rather than alleviate it. On social issues, Bush also was a strongly divisive figure who wanted to stack the court with conservative judges who would overturn socially liberal laws that Conservatives hated. I agree that judges should follow the letter of the law, but that also means upholding the constitution, not finding ways to ignore it when it doesn't suit one's ideology. He even tried to pass an amendment to ban gay marriage. This is not an issue of him supporting or opposing gay marriage which reasonable people can agree to disagree on, rather it is a complete pervision of the constitution. The constitution is about giving people rights, not taking away rights. On the environment, he was a disaster too. Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol sent the wrong signal to the rest of the world, but considering the US has a long isolationist past and mistrust of international organizations, he could have at least shown strong leadership on tackling environmental problems without necessarily signing onto Kyoto. Instead he did absolutely nothing to deal with global warming and any progress the US made here was due to actions by state governments, not the federal government. Likewise he favoured drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge despite the fact this was an ecologically fragile area. Thankfully enough moderate Republicans in the senate broke ranks to defeat this. Rather than finding ways to end America's addiction to oil, he simply wanted to find more places to drill. He gutted several environmental acts too. There were many other disastrous domestic policies that I don't have time to list.
Canada-US relations
Many on the right argue Bush was a free trader and that he was good for Canada-US relations and things will get worse under a Democrat president. I would argue that relations between our two countries were the worst they've been in many years. While Canada and the US have traditionally had frosty relations as Canada has historically had a strong anti-American under current and the US back in the 1800s saw Canada as a mere extension of their country under their Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine. However those days are now long gone and with our countries being increasingly intertwined, the days of hostile relations should be a thing of the past. Yet under Bush, he ensured either we had bad relations or if we complied with many of their wishes they would be bad for Canada. I cannot list all the bad parts in our relationship, but I will list just a few. It is true that Raymond Chretien's statement saying Canada would prefer Al Gore won and Francois Ducros calling Bush a moron were not appropriate diplomatically even if most Canadians shared this view. Still this was minor compared to how he treated us. The reality is he was unwilling to work with leaders who didn't share his worldview whereas a good president would understand the importance of good relations even if the leaders of the two countries do not share the same ideology. Obama certainly understand this, which is why I am sure he will get along well with whoever is in power in Canada, be it a Liberal PM, Conservative PM, or god forbid an NDP one. After 9/11, Bush toughened up the border security leading to long line-ups and some Republicans even called for building a border fence. When it comes to border security, it was the Democrats, not the Republicans who stood up for keeping the free flow between the two countries which is just as vital as free trade. In 1981 when I was born, Europe had long line ups and required one to carry a passport whereas between Canada and the US, line ups were short and usually only a few questions asked and only a driver's licence was needed. Today, their are long line ups, passports required, extensive checks whereas in Europe, they have abolished their border controls completely. Now I am not suggesting we should go this far, but the stricter checks were not necessary, especially considering none of the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada even though some Republican politicans repeated this falsehood. For all this talk of Bush being a free trader, we had relatively few trade disputes under the Clinton administration, however under Bush the softwood lumber dispute dragged on for six years and despite several court wins by Canada, Bush stated he would ignore them since the US was not bound by international agreements, they could do whatever suited their interest much as they did with other agreements. It was only in 2006, when Harper signed an agreement that placed an export tax on our lumber exports, restrictions on imports of softwood lumber and could be ripped up in 2 years time. The deal signed in 2006 was not a good deal as some claim, but clearly a bad deal. Some could argue the US was going to continue to fight us until the industry went out of business so we took the best deal possible. Whether it was the best possible or not, it was a lousy deal and would have never been necessary if he followed NAFTA. So for those claiming the Republicans are free traders and the Democrats are protectionist, the Republicans may talk the talk on free trade, but they don't walk the walk. Finally when Canada had a legitimate disagreement over the Iraq War, Bush made sure we paid for. We disagreed with Reagan on Star Wars and Apartheid and with Clinton on the Cuban Embargo Act, but we respectfully agreed to disagree and moved on and none of those cases we were punished for taking a different approach. Both Reagan and Clinton understood we were different countries and would sometimes take different approaches while Bush was unwilling to listen or learn about our side. The fact he still thinks he is well liked globally today shows how delusional he is and ignorant on foreign policy. After the Iraq War, Bush cancelled his visit to Canada, but instead visited with Australian PM John Howard at his ranch, who did back the Iraq War. This was an example of diplomacy at its worst and one former president Clinton rightly condemned. In late 2003, Bush released a list of countries eligible to apply for contracts in the re-construction of Iraq, but only those who either supported or at least didn't oppose the invasion were permitted to apply. This decision was called dumb by John Kerry and likewise Germany even threatened to take the US to the WTO over this as this violates WTO rules. The administration eventually backed down. But if there was any message from either of those two incidents, it was that countries were expected to blindly follow the US and those who dared to take different approaches, even if supported by the majority of their population, would pay. Most past presidents usually placed Canada as one of their most important allies, be they Republican or Democrat, whereas to Bush we barely registered on his radar. And when we played a big role in helping out in Afghanistan where the real threat was (and we did far more than the most so called coalition of the willing countries did) or took in the US planes on 9/11, he refused to even thank us, but rather showed contempt for us when we took different positions. Bush was not a friend of Canada and relations were not good with the US under Bush, not because of the Liberals being hostile to him (although this didn't help), but due to his actions. Obama may not be perfect for Canada, but I am almost positive relations will be far better under his administration than Bush. Tomorrow, I will post on Obama's first day (or at least half day) as US president. For all the bad things Bush did, hopefully this will be a lesson learned and at least we get a really good president to follow so for all the bad things the United States can do, it can do good things too. After all, when a country with a legacy of slavery 150 years ago and segregation only 40 years ago, can evolve to the point it can elect a Black president, this shows the ability of the country to change for the good. If Bush represented the ugly side of the US, Obama represents all the great things about the United States and hopefully he can once again restore their confidence domestically and their image globally.
Foreign Policy
On September 11, 2001, the United States faced a horrible attack in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Much of the world was sympathetic to the US and even many countries that normally had cool relations with the US were fully behind it. As one French paper read "we are all Americans". This was a time when Bush could have united the world behind the US, but instead of uniting the world, his reckless foreign policy increased anti-Americanism to all time highs and brought public opinion of the US to all time lows globally. Whatever sympathy the world had for the US after 9/11, he did everything to ensure it disappeared. The decision to attack Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Ladin was the right one which even Obama fully supports. However, rather than going after Bin Ladin who the culprit behind 9/11, Bush became focused on Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator, but had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed absolutely no threat to the US or any of its allies. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Bush used blatant lies to try and make the case for invading Iraq. Traditional allies like Canada, Germany, and France who refused to sign on, were threatened with retaliation and made clear that there was no accepting of those taking different views. After failing to get a UN resolution, the US went and attacked Iraq anyway which was a violation of international law. An attack on a sovereign country is only permissible under two circumstances: it is in legitimate self-defence or it has UN authorization and in which case Iraq met neither. After Iraq was invaded, the US had no plan to deal with the aftermath. Instead Bush had this delusional idea the Iraqis would welcome them as liberators. Instead, the country has fallen into chaos, terrorism has risen, and as bad as Saddam Hussein was, in many ways Iraq is even worse off. This also costed massive amounts of money that could have been much better spent elsewhere. He also showed blatant disregard for both the Geneva Convention and the US constitution. Whether it be Abu Gharib or Guantanamo Bay, these were both examples of blatant disregard for both the above. In fact the whole reason Guantanamo Bay was located in Cuba, not on US soil, is because such place would violate the US constitution and would be ordered shut down by the courts. As awful as terrorists are, every person deserves the right to a fair trial, legal counsel, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even the most brutal serial killers are given this and so should terorrists. I don't condone terrorism and nor do most others, however, mistakes can happen and people can be accused who are not guilty, which is why the US constitution has the position of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial. In addition, one does not defeat terrorism by descending to their level. In the meantime, rather than hunting down Osama Bin Ladin, he is still free. In the mean time civil rights at home have been frequently disregarded and he created a culture of fear and division
Domestic Policy
If Bush was a disaster on the foreign policy, he was equally bad on domestic policy. In fact it was domestic policy more so than foreign policy that turned public opinion in the US so strongly against him and why he has one of the lowest approval ratings ever of an outgoing president. In 2000, the US had a strong economy and a surplus. Under the Bush presidency, the national debt doubled for $5 billion to $10 billion and their current account deficit also increased. Bush advocated deficit financed tax cuts mainly targeted towards the wealthy. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not wrong in themselves, but should only be done if the country can afford to do so, which clearly the US could not and tax cuts should go to those of lower and middle income Americans before the wealthy. He created the patriot act which violated many Americans rights and wiretapped phones without a warrant which also is a violation of the US constitution. The sheer incompetence of his presidency was no more evident than during Hurricane Katrina were the response of a terrible natural disaster was slow and inadequate. Likewise, his love for de-regulation partly played a role in creating our current economic mess. Excessive regulation is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean you blindly de-regulate everything, rather it is about balance which the Bush administration lacked. While the economic downturn is not solely Bush's fault, his actions did more to make it worse rather than alleviate it. On social issues, Bush also was a strongly divisive figure who wanted to stack the court with conservative judges who would overturn socially liberal laws that Conservatives hated. I agree that judges should follow the letter of the law, but that also means upholding the constitution, not finding ways to ignore it when it doesn't suit one's ideology. He even tried to pass an amendment to ban gay marriage. This is not an issue of him supporting or opposing gay marriage which reasonable people can agree to disagree on, rather it is a complete pervision of the constitution. The constitution is about giving people rights, not taking away rights. On the environment, he was a disaster too. Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol sent the wrong signal to the rest of the world, but considering the US has a long isolationist past and mistrust of international organizations, he could have at least shown strong leadership on tackling environmental problems without necessarily signing onto Kyoto. Instead he did absolutely nothing to deal with global warming and any progress the US made here was due to actions by state governments, not the federal government. Likewise he favoured drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge despite the fact this was an ecologically fragile area. Thankfully enough moderate Republicans in the senate broke ranks to defeat this. Rather than finding ways to end America's addiction to oil, he simply wanted to find more places to drill. He gutted several environmental acts too. There were many other disastrous domestic policies that I don't have time to list.
Canada-US relations
Many on the right argue Bush was a free trader and that he was good for Canada-US relations and things will get worse under a Democrat president. I would argue that relations between our two countries were the worst they've been in many years. While Canada and the US have traditionally had frosty relations as Canada has historically had a strong anti-American under current and the US back in the 1800s saw Canada as a mere extension of their country under their Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine. However those days are now long gone and with our countries being increasingly intertwined, the days of hostile relations should be a thing of the past. Yet under Bush, he ensured either we had bad relations or if we complied with many of their wishes they would be bad for Canada. I cannot list all the bad parts in our relationship, but I will list just a few. It is true that Raymond Chretien's statement saying Canada would prefer Al Gore won and Francois Ducros calling Bush a moron were not appropriate diplomatically even if most Canadians shared this view. Still this was minor compared to how he treated us. The reality is he was unwilling to work with leaders who didn't share his worldview whereas a good president would understand the importance of good relations even if the leaders of the two countries do not share the same ideology. Obama certainly understand this, which is why I am sure he will get along well with whoever is in power in Canada, be it a Liberal PM, Conservative PM, or god forbid an NDP one. After 9/11, Bush toughened up the border security leading to long line-ups and some Republicans even called for building a border fence. When it comes to border security, it was the Democrats, not the Republicans who stood up for keeping the free flow between the two countries which is just as vital as free trade. In 1981 when I was born, Europe had long line ups and required one to carry a passport whereas between Canada and the US, line ups were short and usually only a few questions asked and only a driver's licence was needed. Today, their are long line ups, passports required, extensive checks whereas in Europe, they have abolished their border controls completely. Now I am not suggesting we should go this far, but the stricter checks were not necessary, especially considering none of the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada even though some Republican politicans repeated this falsehood. For all this talk of Bush being a free trader, we had relatively few trade disputes under the Clinton administration, however under Bush the softwood lumber dispute dragged on for six years and despite several court wins by Canada, Bush stated he would ignore them since the US was not bound by international agreements, they could do whatever suited their interest much as they did with other agreements. It was only in 2006, when Harper signed an agreement that placed an export tax on our lumber exports, restrictions on imports of softwood lumber and could be ripped up in 2 years time. The deal signed in 2006 was not a good deal as some claim, but clearly a bad deal. Some could argue the US was going to continue to fight us until the industry went out of business so we took the best deal possible. Whether it was the best possible or not, it was a lousy deal and would have never been necessary if he followed NAFTA. So for those claiming the Republicans are free traders and the Democrats are protectionist, the Republicans may talk the talk on free trade, but they don't walk the walk. Finally when Canada had a legitimate disagreement over the Iraq War, Bush made sure we paid for. We disagreed with Reagan on Star Wars and Apartheid and with Clinton on the Cuban Embargo Act, but we respectfully agreed to disagree and moved on and none of those cases we were punished for taking a different approach. Both Reagan and Clinton understood we were different countries and would sometimes take different approaches while Bush was unwilling to listen or learn about our side. The fact he still thinks he is well liked globally today shows how delusional he is and ignorant on foreign policy. After the Iraq War, Bush cancelled his visit to Canada, but instead visited with Australian PM John Howard at his ranch, who did back the Iraq War. This was an example of diplomacy at its worst and one former president Clinton rightly condemned. In late 2003, Bush released a list of countries eligible to apply for contracts in the re-construction of Iraq, but only those who either supported or at least didn't oppose the invasion were permitted to apply. This decision was called dumb by John Kerry and likewise Germany even threatened to take the US to the WTO over this as this violates WTO rules. The administration eventually backed down. But if there was any message from either of those two incidents, it was that countries were expected to blindly follow the US and those who dared to take different approaches, even if supported by the majority of their population, would pay. Most past presidents usually placed Canada as one of their most important allies, be they Republican or Democrat, whereas to Bush we barely registered on his radar. And when we played a big role in helping out in Afghanistan where the real threat was (and we did far more than the most so called coalition of the willing countries did) or took in the US planes on 9/11, he refused to even thank us, but rather showed contempt for us when we took different positions. Bush was not a friend of Canada and relations were not good with the US under Bush, not because of the Liberals being hostile to him (although this didn't help), but due to his actions. Obama may not be perfect for Canada, but I am almost positive relations will be far better under his administration than Bush. Tomorrow, I will post on Obama's first day (or at least half day) as US president. For all the bad things Bush did, hopefully this will be a lesson learned and at least we get a really good president to follow so for all the bad things the United States can do, it can do good things too. After all, when a country with a legacy of slavery 150 years ago and segregation only 40 years ago, can evolve to the point it can elect a Black president, this shows the ability of the country to change for the good. If Bush represented the ugly side of the US, Obama represents all the great things about the United States and hopefully he can once again restore their confidence domestically and their image globally.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:04 PM
4 Comments:
At the end, Bush's approval ratings were in the low 20s. If he could run for a third term, he would have almost certainly been creamed and quite possibly won ZERO electoral votes - in fact, a third-party conservative could have beaten him (and split the vote for an Obama landslide). While almost everyone on the left hated Obama, even many conservatives did not like him for varying reasons (Iraq - they opposed it too, immigration - they want it reduced, enormous deficits, etc.)
I believe Bush's approval ratings were in the high 20s, but either way, they were amongst the lowest of any outgoing president. Anything under 30% are even in the low 30s is pretty bad for an outgoing president. If he could run for a third term, I agree he would have lost in a landslide although I still think Bush would have won some electoral votes.
Idaho and Utah - large Mormon population and this group is quite conservative and one I cannot see going anything other than Republican
Wyoming and Oklahoma - Big producers of oil so I suspect they would prefer a party that is happy to find new places to drill rather than one who wants to end America's addiction to oil. After all, McCain beat Obama by a 2-1 margin in these states and these were Obama's two worst states and McCain's two best
Mississippi and Alabama - voting has always been very racially polarized in these states. It use to be solidly Democrat often upwards of 90% amongst whites and solidy Republican amongst Blacks (although few were actually eligible to vote). Today it is the exact opposite, solidly Republican amongst whites and solidly Democrat amongst Blacks. Generally whichever party is more conservative and whichever party is less supportive of civil rights and whichever party the African-American community favours, tends to get clobbered amongst the white community in those two states. Unfortunate, but still a reality.
So I doubt Bush would have gotten zero electoral votes, although I think Obama would have won a landslide simliar to that of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 had Bush run for a third term. In fact I believe Obama had the best Democrat showing since 1964 and the combined right wing vote (in 1992 and 1996 it was lower, but if you add the Republicans + Ross Perot it was higher) was the worst since 1964.
As for a third party, it is possible, although considering Bush's strongest support came from White Evangelicals, it would have to be a very socially conservative one. I am thinking something along the lines of making Christianity the official religion in the constitution, outlawing abortion, passing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, outlawing the teaching of evolution and mandating the teaching of creationism, requiring the ten commandments be posted in all government buildings, require the lord's prayer be read everyday at school, and firing all liberal justices and stacking the court with conservative ones. This would be the type of party that would pry the Evangelical Whites loss of the Republicans, which is about the only group that was still solidly behind the Republicans.
The left hated Bush all along, the centre in Canada and Europe hated him all along, however in the US they were split in 2000, solidly behind him from 9/11 to the Iraq War, split again in 2004, while solidly against him from 2005 onwards. On the right, it was a bit different. The centre-right turned against him as they found him too ideological. While many on the centre-right in Canada and Europe wanted Gore to win in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, it really wasn't until the 2006 midterms that a large number of centre-right Americans started voting Democrat. In fact many of the Bush-Obama switchers were centre-right voters. The Libertarians were mad at him for allowing government to grow even more and even faster than under Clinton. However, the White Evangelicals, who make up 25-30% of the US population and are the majority in some Southern states pretty much supported Bush all along and by and large are the only group left that still supports him. That is why I say you would need a more socially right wing party to pry this group away from the Republicans. Other than this group, most hated him. Globally few liked him although you always had a few hard core Conservatives in both Canada and probably in Europe who liked him. Just go to Blogging Tories and see how many of their right wing ideologue bloggers are praising Bush and talking about what a great president he was. Off course these bloggers are to the right of 90% of the Canadian population, but they still exist and I suspect in Europe you probably have around 10% of the population that feels the same way.
Such a party actually exists. It is called the Constitution Party. (Their candidate finished 5th in the election, behind Nader and the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr).
I'm thinking of some party running along the lines of Ron Paul - neutral on social issues, VERY conservative on economic issues, nationalist on foreign policy. They would be calling for an immediate pull-out of Iraq and Afghanistan and walls around the borders (at least from Mexico).
Anonymous - I think the problem in the US is unless there is a strong dislike of both options a third party rarely gets anywhere. I don't know much about the constitution party, while the libertarian party probably wouldn't sell well amongst the White Evangelicals. While libertarians were mad at Bush, Obama already picked up a sizeable chunk of this group. States like Colorado (which he won) and Montana (which he almost won) are examples of this whereas in the South, only the South Atlantic and Texas swung strongly in favour of Obama and in the case of the South Atlantic they have a large number of transplated Northeasterners as well as a larger college educated population. Texas swung in his favour largely due to McCain's drop in support amongst Latinos. Any swing in favour of Obama elsewhere was likely due to the larger turnout amongst African-Americans. The White population here if anything swung in favour of McCain and this group is very right wing socially while less so economically. Still, it would be interesting to see what would have happened. I do though agree Bob Barr would have probably cracked the 1% if not 2% mark. And heck Ralph Nader might have done better to as many on the left only voted Obama to make sure there wasn't a repeat of 2000.
Post a Comment
<< Home