3 May 2012



RAIA MWEMA UGHAIBUNI
Wana usalama na nguvu yao kwa viongozi
Evarist Chahali
Toleo la 237
2 May 2012
MAKALA katika safu hii ya Novemba 2 mwaka jana ilianzisha uchambuzi wa nafasi za vyama mbalimbali vya siasa huko nyumbani katika Uchaguzi Mkuu ujao.
Habari zilizotawala nchini Marekani hivi karibuni (na ambazo zinaendelea kuvuma japo si kwa kasi kubwa kama ilivyokuwa awali) ni kuhusu skandali iliyokikumba kitengo cha ulinzi wa Rais wa nchi hiyo, kinachofahamika kama Secret Service.
Kwa kawaida ya taratibu za kikazi, wanausalama hutangulia kukagua usalama wa sehemu inayotarajiwa kutembelewa na kiongozi wa juu wa nchi.
Msafara wa wanausalama hao unaweza kuweka makazi katika sehemu hiyo angalau mwezi mmoja kabla ya ziara husika kutegemea na hali ya usalama katika sehemu hiyo.
Sasa, kabla ya Rais Barack Obama kufanya ziara huko Amerika ya Kusini, jamaa wa Secret Service walishatangulia mapema kuhakikisha kwamba usalama wa kiongozi huyo muhimu si kwa Marekani bali dunia kwa ujumla, hauna mushkeli.
Pamoja na mashushushu waliotoka Marekani, walikuwako wenzao ambao kituo chao cha kazi ni eneo hilo la Amerika ya Kusini. Lakini katika mazingira yaliyosababisha mshtuko mkubwa, baadhi ya maafisa usalama hao walikumbwa na skandali ya kujihusisha na makahaba nchini Colombia.
Pengine skandali hiyo isingeibuka laiti mmoja wa mashushushu hao asingempunja ujira kahaba mmoja, ambaye katika harakati za kudai ‘haki yake’ alisababisha kuibuka kwa kashfa kubwa pengine kuliko zote kwa taasisi za usalama nchini Marekani.
Kwa mujibu wa taarifa, kingine kilichochangia sakata hiyo kufichuka ni ushupavu wa mmoja wa viongozi wa Secret Service, mwanamama Mmarekani Mweusi, Paula Reid ambaye baada ya kupata taarifa za ‘madudu’ ya baadhi ya maafisa anaoongoza alimfahamisha Mkuu wa taasisi hiyo Mark Sullivan kuomba ruhusa ya kuwaondoa walioshiriki kwenye tukio hilo la aibu.
Duru za kisiasa, kiusalama na habari zimemwagia sifa lukuki mwanamama huyo ambaye amekuwa mtumishi wa Secret Service kwa miaka 21 sasa. Reid ni mmoja ya wanawake wachache kabisa Weusi kuwa viongozi kwenye taasisi hiyo nyeti.
Licha ya kulazimika kuchukua hatua alizochukua  kama kiongozi, ni wazi kuwa shushushu huyo wa kike alitambua bayana kuwa laiti ‘lingetokea la kutokea’, yeye kama kiongozi angebeba mzigo wote wa lawama.
Nimesimulia habari hii si tu kwa vile nimevutiwa sana na ujasiri wa Paula Reid bali pia ningependa kuitumia kama mfano katika kujadili mada ya leo: nafasi ya watendaji kazi katika kumjenga au kumbomoa kiongozi.
Nikiri kwamba kwa mara ya kwanza kabisa, katika siku chache zilizopita nimejikuta nikishawishika kuafikiana na kauli inayosikika mara kwa mara kumhusu Rais Jakaya Kikwete, kwamba ‘anaangushwa na wasaidizi wake.’
Labda kabla ya kuingia kwa undani kwenye mada hii ni muhimu kuwafahamu japo ‘kiduchu’ hao wanaoitwa wasaidizi wa Rais. Wakati kuna watumishi kadhaa walioteuliwa na Rais kufanya kazi naye kama wasaidizi wake, kuna idadi kubwa zaidi ya ‘wasaidizi wasioonekana’ na ambao kwa kiasi kikubwa hata Rais mwenyewe hawafahamu lakini wanawajibika zaidi ya hao wateuliwa wake kumpatia ushauri sahihi kila siku kuhakikisha kuwa nchi inakwenda vizuri. Hapa ninawazungumzia ndugu zetu wa Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa.
Wakati mara nyingi watu walioteuliwa na Rais kuwa wasaidizi wake huwa ‘waliobobea’ kwenye fani moja, wanausalama wetu ni watumishi wa umma ambao kwa mafunzo yao na utendaji kazi wao hubobea kwenye takriban kila eneo.
Kwa hiyo hadi hapo unaweza kubaini kuwa ‘wasaidizi’ muhimu wa Rais si mshauri wa uchumi, au siasa, nk bali ni Maafisa wa Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa, ambao kimsingi wanawajibika moja kwa moja kwa Rais.
Naomba ieleweke kuwa simaanishi kuwa ikitokea mshauri wa Rais ameboronga basi hilo litakuwa kosa la Maafisa Usalama. Hapana. Hapa ninajenga ‘picha pana zaidi’ kwa maana ya tija kutoka kwa watu wenye uelewa na ujuzi wa takriban kila eneo la maisha ya Mtanzania.
Turejee kwenye hoja ya kuwa Rais Kikwete anaangushwa na wasaidizi wake (ila hapa nitaangalia hao wasaidizi muhimu zaidi, yaani watu wa Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa).
Kwa mujibu wa taratibu, Idara hiyo ni wasaidizi wa Rais kwa njia ya ushauri tu. Japo wana namna ya kulazimisha ushauri huo utekelezwe, mazingira yetu yanafanya suala hilo kubaki la kinadharia zaidi kuliko vitendo.
Nitoe mfano. Kabla ya uvamizi wa Marekani nchini Iraki, wanasiasa wenye mrengo mkali wa kihafidhina wanaojulikana kama neo-conservatives au kwa kifupi neo-cons, walifanikiwa kuzishawishi taasisi za usalama za Marekani kufukua kila aina ya matishio ‘yaliyosababishwa na kuwapo kwa Saddam Hussein madarakani.
Japo Rais wa wakati huo, George Bush (mtoto) naye alikuwa muumini wa itikadi hiyo ya mrengo wa kulia kabisa wa uhafidhina, kwa kiasi kikubwa kilichompa nguvu ya kuamuru uvamizi wa nchi hiyo huko Iraki ni ‘uthibitisho’ (ambao baadaye ulibainika kuwa fyongo) kuwa Saddam ana silaha za maangamizi ya umma (weapons of mass destruction).
Kwa wanaofuatilia siasa za kimataifa watakumbuka kauli ‘maarufu’ ya mkuu wa Shirika la Kijasusi la nchi hiyo George Tenet  kuwa ‘ushahidi kuwa Saddam ana silaha za maangamizi ya umma ni sawa na 'kuchumpa' na mpira wa kikapu (slam dunk), yaani ni ushahidi wa wazi kabisa, japo baadaye ilibainika kuwa ushahidi huo ulikuwa na mushkeli mkubwa.
Nimetoa mfano huo kuonyesha jinsi gani taasisi ya usalama wa taifa inaweza ‘kulazimisha’ ushauri wake ufuatwe, hasa ikizingatiwa kuwa kimsingi uhai wa taasisi ya urais unategemea mno ufanisi wa idara ya usalama ya nchi husika.
Sasa, tukiangalia-kwa mfano-sakata la mawaziri wanaotuhumiwa kwa ufisadi na kutakuwa wajiuzulu (hadi wakati ninaandaa makala hii walikuwa hawajajiuzulu) tunaweza ‘kumhurumia’ Rais Kikwete kwa kutopewa usaidizi wa kutosha na watendaji wenye dhamana ya kufukua na kuweka wazi ‘madudu’ yote yanayodaiwa kufanywa na mawaziri hao.
Kwa kawaida, Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa hupenyeza watumishi wake katika taasisi mbalimbali kwa minajili ya kupata taarifa sahihi za kiusalama, ambazo hutengeneza msingi wa ushauri wao kwa Rais baada ya kuzichambua.
Je, inawezekana taasisi hiyo nyeti imeshindwa kupata taarifa hizo kiasi kwamba ikashindwa kumfahamisha Rais yanayofanywa na mawaziri wake? Je, inawezekana kuwa taasisi hiyo ilifanikiwa kukusanya taarifa hizo na kutoa ushauri mwafaka lakini ukapuuzwa? Nisingependa kubaishiri jibu kwani ukweli unafahamika kwa wahusika.
Lakini katika mazingira ya kawaida si rahisi kwa kiongozi wa nchi kuamua kupuuzia ushauri wa wasaidizi wake muhimu ambao si tu ‘wana macho kila eneo’ bali pia wanawezesha taasisi ya urais kufanya kazi zake kwa ufanisi na kwa ujumla kuiwezesha nchi kuwa salama.
Katika namna fulani, wanausalama huhusika katika mchakato wa teuzi anazofanya  kiongozi mkuu wa nchi. Japo nisingependa kuingia kwa undani katika hilo, kwa kifupi ushauri wao ni muhimu sana (na pengine huzingatiwa) kabla Rais hajatangaza jina la anayemteua kushika wadhifa fulani.
Sasa, inapotokea baadhi ya wanaoteuliwa na Rais kuwa na walakini, inatubidi kujiuliza iwapo washauri walipotoka au aliyeshauriwa hakuzingatia ushauri husika.
Nimeshawishika kuafikiana na wanaodai kuwa Rais anaangushwa na wasaidizi wake kwa sababu, kwa uelewa wangu, tofauti na washauri wanaoteuliwa na Rais kwenye eneo moja, washauri muhimu kama wa Idara ya Usalama wenye uelewa wa takriban kila eneo wana namna wanayoweza kuitumia ‘kulazimisha ushauri wao ufuatwe kwa maslahi ya taasisi ya urais na taifa kwa ujumla.
Ikumbukwe kuwa Rais ni binadamu kama wengine, na si rahisi kufahamu kila kinachoendelea wizarani au mtaani. Wenye jukumu la kumsaidia kufahamu ni hao wasaidizi wake. Sasa kama hawatekelezi jukumu hilo ipasavyo itamwia vigumu Rais kufahamu kama ‘waziri fulani anafadhiliwa na mafisadi fulani’ au huko mtaani wananchi wanalalamikia hiki au kile.
Sawa, baadhi ya maamuzi yanapewa baraka na Rais kwenye vikao vya Baraza la Mawaziri. Lakini katika mazingira ya kawaida tu ya kibinadamu, atawezaje kufahamu iwapo taarifa zinazowasilishwa kwenye vikao hivyo ni sahihi au la, pasipo wasaidizi wake wenye jukumu la ‘kusaka ukweli’ kumfahamisha mapema?
Nimalizie kwa kusisitiza kuwa ninapoizungumzia Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa katika namna yoyote ile ninasukumwa na imani yangu kwa taasisi hiyo na kutaka kuiona ikizifanyia kazi changamoto mbalimbali inazozikabili ili si tu iwe na msaada mkubwa kwa Rais na taasisi ya urais bali pia kwa Taifa kwa ujumla.
Taasisi hiyo ni uti wa mgongo wa kila nchi duniani, na kila mzalendo anapaswa kuisapoti kwa namna mbalimbali ikiwa ni pamoja na ‘kuishtua pale inapoonekana imesinzia’ kama ninavyofanya katika safu hii.

25 Apr 2012


Predict the 2012 election with our interactive tool!

 at 09:17 AM ET, 04/24/2012

Predict Obama's odds in the 2012 election

Click the image to use the interactive tool.



“To see what’s in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle,” George Orwell wrote. But the problem for those of us paying attention to the 2012 election is rather the opposite: To ignore what keeps being thrust in front of one’s face requires its own sort of struggle.
Here is a partial list of “scandals” that have grabbed hold of the news cycle in past weeks: “Rosengate,” in which a Democratic operative and CNN contributor named Hilary Rosen said something dismissive about Ann Romney’s work history; “Dog-gate,” in which conservatives pretended to be outraged that President Obama, as a 7-year-old living in Indonesia, had been fed dog meat; and “Cookiegate,” in which Mitt Romney asked if cookies he was offered were from 7-Eleven and inadvertently insulted a local baker.
I could go on. But I won’t. It’s too depressing. The good news, however, is that the tornado of idiocy that seems to accompany modern presidential campaigns — remember “lipstick on a pig”? — doesn’t much matter.
Political scientists have long known that you can predict most of what will happen in a presidential election with just a few key pieces of information: how the economy does, for instance, and the incumbent’s approval ratings in the summer. If you have those two numbers — even before you know the opponent, the campaign strategies or the issues — you can usually call the winner.
What these models suggest, in other words, is that the ephemera of elections aren’t that important. Not that this stuff doesn’t matter at all: Elections are often close, and a few percentage points can mean the difference between defeat and victory. But these micro-scandals mostly serve to distract us from the things that really do matter. And I don’t want to spend the next seven months distracted.
So I asked three political scientists — Seth Hill of Yale, John Sides of George Washington University and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA — to help me create an election forecasting model. And when I say “help me,” I mean that they did all the work and then sat me down and explained, slowly and using small words, what they had done.
The final model uses just three pieces of information that have been found to be particularly predictive: economic growth in the year of the election, as measured by the change in gross domestic product during the first three quarters; the president’s approval rating in June; and whether one of the candidates is the incumbent.
That may seem a bit thin. But it calls 12 of the past 16 elections right. The average error in its prediction of the two-party vote share is less than three percentage points.
Then I started playing with the model. And frankly, it just looked wrong. If GDP is flat — that is to say, if the economy doesn’t grow at all this year — and Obama’s approval rating is 45 percent, he wins 49 percent of the time. If you boost growth to a still-anemic 1.5 percentage points, he wins 74 percent of the time. That seems a little unlikely.
That, the political scientists said, is the point of a model such as this one.
“There’s this moment where you go, ‘Whoa, that’s a high number,’ ” Vavreck says. “ ‘Something must be wrong.’ But what it forces you to do is . . . to divorce yourself from contemporary context. You can’t go in thinking, ‘But, oh, this president is black,’ or ‘Gas prices are high,’ or ‘We just had the tea party.’ You have to strip all that away and say: ‘Incumbent parties, in growing economies, almost always win in contemporary American history.’ ”
She’s right. Since 1948, only three incumbent presidents have lost reelection campaigns: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Carter and Bush both ran in very bad economies. Ford was a bit of an odd case, as he took office after Richard Nixon resigned over Watergate, and even so, the election was extremely close. This is the way models discipline your thinking: They force you to see relationships and patterns that conflict with your intuition.
The question is what happens when you add contemporary context back in. The model, for instance, assumes that voters will have the same reaction to slow economic growth in 2012 that they would have had in 1996 or 1964. But the past four years have seen the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Voters might be much less willing to forgive slow growth. Or, since many place the bulk of the blame for the crisis on George W. Bush, perhaps they’ll grade Obama on a kind of curve. The model can’t tell us.
And, sadly, neither can the past. Since 1948, there have been only 16 presidential elections. Which is another limit of models like this one: a relatively thin data set spread over a relatively long time. It would be nice to have more examples of presidential elections conducted during once-in-a-generation crises, in the Internet era, with serious third parties, with African American incumbents, with Mormon challengers, etc. And as Nate Silver, a statistician and blogger at the New York Times, points out, these models often do much worse when tested against new elections that are not in the original sample.
The three contests that the model was worst at calling were the 2008 race, where it predicted that Obama would get an additional 3.7 percentage points; the 1992 election, where it forecast that the elder Bush would win easily; and the 1972 election, where it foretold an even larger victory for Nixon. Perhaps race depressed Obama’s numbers, Ross Perot hurt Bush, and Nixon hurt Nixon. But those are just hypotheses. We have no way of knowing whether they’re right. We can’t rerun the elections under different conditions.
So sure, perhaps this year will be different — that’s what my gut tells me, and the model has me thinking about the ways in which that could be true. But the reality is, everyone always thinks “this year” will be different, and they’re usually wrong. That’s what the model tells me.
I am, however, confident that if this year really is different, it won’t be because of “Dog-gate.”
There’s no reason we should have all the fun. So we’ve opened the model for you to play around with athttp://wapo.st/election-predictor. Put in your best guess for economic growth this year and Obama’s approval rating in June. Or rerun previous elections and see how the model performs. At the very least, it’ll be a nice distraction from, well, all the distractions.

Barcelona 2 Chelsea 2 (agg 2-3): Salute the incredibles! Terry off, 2-0 down but brave Blues hit back to reach final


Amid the chaos created by a captain’s insane indiscipline, Chelsea’s Incredibles emerged on Tuesday night.
This was a group of players who somehow survived for 54 minutes in the absence of the dismissed John Terry and secured their passage to the Champions League final; a team who stopped a Barcelona side that had already scored 102 goals at home this season before this semi-final began.
In doing so, they joined the ranks of the European greats.
Magic moment: Torres celebrates after bagging the goal which confirmed Chelsea's position in the final
Magic moment: Torres celebrates after bagging the goal which confirmed Chelsea's position in the final

MATCH FACTS

Barcelona: Valdes, Puyol, Pique (Dani Alves 26), Mascherano, Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta, Cuenca (Tello 58), Messi, Sanchez, Fabregas (Keita 74).
Subs not used: Pinto, Thiago, Pedro, Adriano. 
Booked: Iniesta, Messi.
Goals: Busquets 35, Iniesta 43.
Chelsea: Cech, Ivanovic, Cahill (Bosingwa 12), Terry, Cole, Obi, Meireles, Mata (Kalou 58), Lampard, Ramires, Drogba (Torres 80).
Subs not used: Turnbull, Essien, Malouda, Sturridge.
Booked: Cech, Ivanovic, Ramires, Lampard Mikel.
Sent off: Terry.
Goals: Ramires 45+1, Torres 90+2
Referee: Cuneyt Cakir (Turkey)
It was not just the loss of Terry that presented them with a problem. It was not just that, with only 10 men, they were facing the finest team the world has ever seen. It was the fact they triumphed  without a single centre half on the pitch, having already lost Gary Cahill to injury.
Manager Roberto Di Matteo was whistling when he walked through the media zone shortly after the final whistle, cool as you like.
But an Italian — who might just lose the ‘interim’ part of his job title before long — had masterminded an astonishing victory. 
It was a performance that might have superseded Manchester United’s display on this same Nou Camp pitch in 1999, when they beat Bayern Munich in the final. It  might even have been the most extraordinary contest witnessed in this competition.
By the end Di Matteo had organised his side in a 6-3 formation, with Salomon Kalou doubling up alongside Ramires at right back and Fernando Torres sitting outside Ashley Cole at left back. Want to know how to cope with Barcelona’s big pitch? Just play four full backs.
Opener: Busquets opens the scoring on the night - sliding the ball home from seven yards out and celebrates (below)
Opener: Busquets opens the scoring on the night - sliding the ball home from seven yards out and celebrates (below)
Opener: Busquets opens the scoring on the night - sliding the ball home from seven yards out and celebrates (below)
That Ramires and Torres also scored Chelsea’s goals made it all the more memorable and that bit more special. The first came from the Brazilian just before the interval when it seemed Barcelona were on the road to Bavaria, while Torres added the coup de grace in second-half stoppage time.
Together with Terry, Branislav Ivanovic and Raul Meireles, Ramires will miss the final because of the booking he received here last night. But that did not stop him sprinting the full length of the  field, from his new position in the makeshift back-four, to run on to a pass from Frank Lampard before sending a quite brilliant chip over the advancing Victor Valdes and into the net.
Double your money: Iniesta rounds off a wonderful move to extend Barca's lead on the night
Double your money: Iniesta rounds off a wonderful move to extend Barca's lead on the night
Double your money: Iniesta rounds off a wonderful move to extend Barca's lead on the night
It was amazing. It was Roy Keane — who missed that 1999 final — in a Chelsea shirt. It was enough to make grown men cry.
When Chelsea fans who were here share their recollections of the night, they will reflect on that moment in the  context of the 10 or so  dramatic minutes that came before.  
Chelsea had done well to limit Barcelona to one decent chance in the opening half an hour, with Petr Cech denying Lionel Messi after the best player on the planet had executed a marvellous one-two with Cesc Fabregas. 
Smash and grab: Chelsea found themselves back in charge via Ramires' delicate strike on the stroke of half-time
Smash and grab: Chelsea found themselves back in charge via Ramires' delicate strike on the stroke of half-time
Smash and grab: Chelsea found themselves back in charge via Ramires' delicate strike on the stroke of half-time

But it was looking ominous for the visitors the moment they lost Cahill to injury after only 12 minutes, forcing  Di Matteo to deploy Jose Bosingwa on the flank and move Ivanovic to centre half.
In those 10 first-half minutes, though, Chelsea appeared to  collapse and capitulate.
It started when Sergio Busquets met a neat cross from Isaac Cuenca to score, continued two minutes later when Terry mindlessly drove his knee into the leg of Alexis Sanchez and concluded with Andres Iniesta dropping off the right shoulder of Ramires — now at right back thanks to the need to switch Bosingwa to centre-half — to collect a wonderful pass from Messi before slipping his shot beyond the reach of Cech. 
Seeing red: Chelsea were right up against it after being reduced to ten men when captain Terry was sent off
Seeing red: Chelsea were right up against it after being reduced to ten men when captain Terry was sent off
Seeing red: Chelsea were right up against it after being reduced to ten men when captain Terry was sent off

Surely it was game over. Surely Barcelona would succeed only in building on their lead and leave Terry to reflect on yet more Champions League misery — a penalty for his madness to add to the  penalty he missed in Moscow.
But then came the comeback of comebacks — a defiant fight for survival that will strike fear into whichever side they meet in Munich on May 19. 
Taking a tumble: Valdes, Drogba and Pique collide, leaving the Barca defender out for the count
Taking a tumble: Valdes, Drogba and Pique collide, leaving the Barca defender out for the count
Taking a tumble: Valdes, Drogba and Pique collide, leaving the Barca defender out for the count

The goal from Ramires nearly counted for nothing when, two minutes after the break, Fabregas appeared to dive after a challenge from Didier Drogba in the penalty area and Messi was invited by referee Cuneyt Cakir to score from the spot. But Messi had never scored in seven previous meetings with Chelsea and that record was extended to eight when his effort crashed off Cech’s bar and bounced to safety.
Flashpoint: The players lost their composure briefly in the second-half after the the Barca bench celebrate the opener (below)
Flashpoint: The players lost their composure briefly in the second-half after the the Barca bench celebrate the opener (below)
Flashpoint: The players lost their composure briefly in the second-half after the the Barca bench celebrate the opener (below)

Even then, it only seemed a  matter of time before the Catalans would score again. 
Sanchez had one goal ruled out for offside, while Messi was denied by the brilliance of Cech when the Chelsea goalkeeper diverted another shot against a post.
That Di Matteo’s makeshift side survived a further 43 minutes after Messi’s penalty miss was remarkable, but it was the product of  serious hard graft and intense concentration — defending at its finest.
Blue is the colour! Chelsea celebrate after Torres' late goal rounded off a memorable night for the west Londoners
Blue is the colour! Chelsea celebrate after Torres' late goal rounded off a memorable night for the west Londoners
Blue is the colour! Chelsea celebrate after Torres' late goal rounded off a memorable night for the west Londoners

In front of the defensive line stood three midfielders in Frank Lampard, Meireles and John Mikel Obi who battled every bit as courageously, demonstrating exactly why this Barcelona team do not like playing against them.
That Chelsea scored a second goal was irrelevant in the end, even if it did add to the joy for the visitors and the despair for the hosts. 
All smiles: Di Matteo celebrates the most unlikely of victories after Torres rounded Valdes to score the second
All smiles: Di Matteo celebrates the most unlikely of victories after Torres rounded Valdes to score the second
All smiles: Di Matteo celebrates the most unlikely of victories after Torres rounded Valdes to score the second

Torres must have loved it, though, racing clear in pursuit of a ball forward from Ivanovic before casually taking it around Valdes and scoring into an empty net.
Pure delight: Chelsea players and staff race onto the pitch on the full time whistle
Pure delight: Chelsea players and staff race onto the pitch on the full time whistle
Pure delight: Chelsea players and staff race onto the pitch on the full time whistle

Di Matteo had said his side would need to produce ‘two perfect  performances’ to win this semi-final, but not even he would have envisaged this.
Take a bow, Chelsea’s Incredibles.
Roll on Munich: Chelsea will face Real Madrid or Bayern in the final
Roll on Munich: Chelsea will face Real Madrid or Bayern in the final

SOURCE: Daily Mail

Inawezekana kitendawili cha vazi la taifa kinaweza kuwa kimepata mwanzo mzuri,kama si ufumbuzi kabisa.Wazo hilo limenijia baada ya kuangalia picha hii ya Rais Kikwete na huyo mwanamama wa tatu kushoto,ambapo mitindo ya  mavazi yao ni yameshabihiana kwa kiasi flani hususan ukosi wa mikono.WAMEPENDEZA

Jasusi ChatBot

Categories

Blog Archive

© Evarist Chahali 2006-2022

Search Engine Optimization SEO

Powered by Blogger.