|
Politics: State of the Union
With Tucker Eskew
White House Director of Global Communications
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003; 3:15 p.m. ET
President Bush delivered his third State of the Union address Tuesday night amidst brewing conflict with Iraq, persistent threats from North Korea, a struggling economy and approval ratings that have fallen in recent weeks. Meanwhile, the president continues to push his domestic agenda, from health care to taxes, and Tom Ridge, the nation's first secretary of Homeland Security, was sworn in just days ago.
Tucker Eskew, White House Director of Global Communications, was online to discuss the State of the Union, Bush's performance and the Democratic response.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Los Angeles, Calif.:
Generally speaking, does the prior State of the Union address serve as any sort of outline for the current one? Also, as in business where a business plan serves as a guide for the rest of the year, how often does a State of the Union serve that purpose?
Tucker Eskew: Neat questions, and best answered by the President's speechwriters, but I'll take a stab...I think prior speeches do provide context -- the President wants to be consistent, thematic, etc... -- but they aren't necessarily a playbook for succeeding remarks. The State of the Union (which I'll do WH abbreviations for henceforth) really is a statement of mission for the Administration, meaning: it has to be consistent with the themes of last year, but it must stand on its own as guideposts to the year ahead. And of course, it reflects months-long policy development.(That's not ALL the speech is meant to do, but your question gets at a little noticed fact -- the rest of us take our cues from this address for months to come.)
Burlington, Vt.:
Was a copy of the President's speech distributed internationally? How was this done?
Tucker Eskew: Working closely with the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, we did work to get the President's speech translated -- initially into a half dozen or so major languages and ultimately into another dozen -- and distributed. Via our embassies. Via satellite TV (with simultaneous translation in places like Indonesia, where a major network beamed the speech to tens of millions of homes as the ambassador hosted a very successful speech-watching event with journalists). Via the web (the State Department's websites for international visitors being the best example). And via radio -- VOA, Radio Free Europe, Radio Sawa and Radio Farda and their sister stations under the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
New York, N.Y.:
I thought the President's speech was excellent, but at a time when the Democrats, some of our Allies, and some American polls are clamoring for specifics, or a smoking gun if you will on Iraq, why did the President choose not to give them?
Tucker Eskew: The case against Saddam has been made by Saddam himself and made clear by Dr. Blix. The President reiterated those facts, added some new elements, and put it on the world stage. But this isn't new. This isn't about the last sixty days. It's really, as the British Foreign Secretary said today, about the last 600 weeks. What we can't do -- what the President *won't* do -- is let that long passage of time wear down his awareness of the threat. It's real. It's growing. And it is the "gravest danger" in the war on terror. Secretary Powell will present more information next week, to the U.N. Security Council, but it will reflect a long period of time and many transgressions and omissions by the Iraqi regime.
Washington, D.C.:
What did you think of the Democratic response?
Tucker Eskew: Hmm. That's not my focus here, but rather than "response" I would say something about their "presponse" (er, "prebuttal" is the term and I've been guilty of using it in past campaigns so I won't scoff). As others from the White House have already said, some Democrats harshly prejudged the speech in a way that reflects poorly on them. The President's message rose above that kind of tone and we'll try to stay there.
Arlington, Va.:
When will the adminstration show definitive proof to the American people that Iraq is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq can be linked to al Queda? We need a smoking gun.
Tucker Eskew: There is a strong, compelling, even frightening case -- and Saddam's made it against himself.
As for the "smoking gun" -- the President knows the threat and has responsibility for our security and he doesn't want the smoking gun to be a smoldering city or another slaughter of innocents in one of our cities. What the President and his team are doing right now is "connecting the dots" -- who doesn't wish that someone had "connected the dots" before 9/11. We have seen enough information and too many years of defiance and too much ill motive and hatred of America and torture of innocents and invasion of neighbors to ignore the dots that form a grave and growing danger to America.
Somewhere, USA:
How do you respond to the criticism that this White House isn't focused enough on domestic issues?
Tucker Eskew: My portfolio these days is international, but as a member of the team here, I'm proud to point to last night's speech as another example of bold leadership on all major fronts. The President is tackling the big ones: the economy, prescription drugs and reform of Medicare, the environment, creating a climate where compassion will flourish, and on and on. Admittedly, the focal point of world attention, including domestic media, is Iraq policy, but the substance of his domestic agenda reflects a lot of care and concern and worry, especially for those who want to work but haven't found jobs.
Tucker Eskew: Thanks for the great questions. I appreciate the opportunity to interact and urge the curious, the concerned, and the committed to go to www.whitehouse.gov for in-depth information, exclusive material, and more. TE
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
