Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GLOBAL 'WAR' ON TERROR (GWOT) Years 1 and 2, ie 9/11-2003
White House Office of Global Communications briefing 
White House Office of Global Communications Tucker A. Eskew, Director, White House Office of Global Communications Foreign Press Center Briefing Washington, DC January 24, 2003 10:37 A.M. (EST) Real Audio of Briefing Copyright ©2003 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 220, 1919 M St. NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA. MODERATOR: Good morning ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. As you know, earlier this week President Bush announced the formation of a new office, the Office of Global Communications, within the White House, and so we're delighted to have with us today the director of this new office, Deputy Assistant to the President for Global Communications Tucker Eskew. He'll have a few brief opening remarks, and then we'll be glad to take your questions. Tucker. MR. ESKEW: Very good. Thank you, Paul, and thank you for coming out today on this bitterly cold day. It's a little cool in here as well. I welcome you all, and thank you for that introduction. Part of a busy week. I want to tell you a little bit about this week in the context of what this new office is doing and share with you some of the president's insight in the creation of this new office, and answer any questions that you have before needing to leave in about 30 or 35 minutes. But welcome, and thank you for coming. And thank you to the Foreign Press Center. At the White House, there is a keen appreciation for the value of these centers, the work they do in responding to your needs and those of your editors, and viewers, readers, and listeners. Three days ago, the president of the United States signed an executive order exercising his authority to create a new office, the Office of Global Communications, to coordinate across agency lines and integrate his themes into the communications of our government -- the communications we engage in around the world in speaking about international issues, and speaking about our own domestic policy to the rest of the world. This office is an outgrowth of experiences we gained in the wake of the beginning of the campaign against terror in Afghanistan. We as a government, along with coalition partners, awakened to a reality. Our nation awakened to a reality about terrorism. Several weeks later, we awakened to a reality about information, and in particular, the flow of information from a war zone and from terrorists. And as some of you have noted in news accounts, we found ourselves on the receiving end of a great many lies from the Taliban. And these lies were occurring in time zones far away, so we literally awoke, as a capitol here in Washington each day, as lies began to take root about our coalition, about our country, and about our true intent in that campaign. So, we formed coalition information centers, and over the course of the last year, in Washington, London, Kabul, and Islamabad, we interacted with agencies, coalition partners, and in some cases the press, to coordinate information, to respond rapidly to those misinformation bulletins coming from the Taliban, and then also to recognize and shed light on developing story lines -- story lines that weren't receiving as much attention, such as the role of women in Afghanistan during the Taliban and after the Taliban. And by the way, as a sign of the consistency of these efforts, I draw your attention to the fact that as recently as today and yesterday, one of the president's closest advisors has continued working on the subject, briefing the president on her recent trip to Kabul. Karen Hughes appeared on the Today Show from here in Washington, along with Undersecretary Paula Dobrianski to talk about those efforts and America -- America's true intent in the reconstruction of that war-torn and terror-torn nation. We're here not just to integrate communications and coordinate across the agency lines, but also to raise awareness within the White House of global opinion and the global media climate. So, drawing on the tremendous resources of the State Department and other agencies of our government, we look at the summaries of news coverage from around the world in order to engage in a process I'll talk a little bit about today, which is to listen. A true dialogue in the international sense can only occur when you hear other voices, and the president is keenly aware of that, and our office is as well. I said I'd bring this in light of something that's happened this week. And I'd draw your attention to last Sunday, when principle figure of our administration went before the national public affairs talk shows here in Washington -- Dr. Rice, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld -- and then on Tuesday, Deputy Secretary Armitage of the State Department went before the Institute for Peace and spoke on an issue of grave concern, Iraq. Yesterday, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz of the Defense Department talked about what disarmament looks like. And going into the weekend, Secretary Powell will be in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum and will no doubt address issues of concern on the world stage. And all of these are part of an effort to communicate clearly. President Bush believes that communications should have clarity. They should be based on conviction, true belief, and policies that reflect those beliefs, and compassion, for this president speak not only about the women of Afghanistan with great compassion, but the people of the Middle East, the people of North Korea, and beyond. And then, heading into next week, events will take center stage in New York, and then here in Washington, as the president delivers his state of the union address, an address in which he will focus national attention, and international attention, on his message, which will include economic growth, compassion for our fellow citizens, and security -- homeland security and national security. That's a little bit of a look a head, a short look back. And I'd be happy to take questions about either, although I have more to say about what's already happened, perhaps, than what may be happening in the future. And if I may, I'll make one concluding note before turning it over to Paul to moderate -- the Office of Global Communications is not a new press office. Our colleagues at the National Security Council, though terrifically overworked, do a tremendous job with the resources available to respond to press questions. But we are there, as I said, to raise awareness of the global opinion climate. You'll find us from time-to-time working to provide access to journalists from international news organizations and facilitating that access to presidential events and other occurrences at the White House. So, we do hope to be part of an ongoing relationship. I look forward to getting to know many of you and introducing you to others in our office and to the work that we do. MODERATOR: Okay. We'll be glad to take your questions. Just again, to remind you to please use the microphone, identify yourself and your news organization. And we'll take the first question from the Foreign Press Center in New York, and then we'll move on to Washington. New York? MS. : Good morning. We've actually got two questions that we'll start out with. Thank you. Q Hi. My -- can you hear me? MR. ESKEW : Yes. Q Yeah, my name is Eva Schweitzer. I work for a German daily called Die Berliner Zeitung. My question is about one year from now, an office made headlines in Germany, and I think all over the world, but isn't that the office of disinformation? I actually forgot the real name. And it was supposed to put out stories which might be right or not in favor of the American government. So, it is not completely clear if this office is still existing or not. And my question is, is the Office of Global Communications this very same office in another name and another leadership? Thanks. MR. ESKEW: Thank you, Ms. Schweitzer for that question, and I appreciate the opportunity to address it, very directly. I'll point out that here in Washington we have copies of the executive order, and they're also available on the White House website, in which the president notes that our office assists in the development of communications programs that disseminate truthful, accurate and effective messages about the American people and their government. Let me be very blunt. We're in the business of working with you to provide the facts, provide stories that are accurate and reflect something true about the intent of our government and our people. The office in question was not created -- that story was based on speculation, and the White House spoke quickly after the publication of that story to indicate that the president's desire was to have a new office, our office, to coordinate these truthful and accurate messages. We -- we're going to deal with overt information. We're going to deal with reporters. We're going to deal with our embassies, and the interaction they carry out with reporters and other public groups around the world in a way that is true to the president's executive order. We'll abide by that very carefully. Thank you. MODERATOR: Back to New York for a question. Q Hi. My name is Gertie Schoen. I work for a German daily as well Frankfurter Rundschau. I'm wondering how you're going to weigh the different regions of the world. European countries obviously have different needs and different information channels as, for example, Arab countries that are in the spotlight anyway. So, how do you deal with those different cultures and different levels of information and criticism? MR. ESKEW: That's a very good question, and it draws my attention to another part of the president's executive order, which is that we will focus on areas of high priority, and we'll work with new technology. The rise of transnational issues and transnational media, especially in the last 10 years, have helped give rise to the need for this office. Our government has outreach through its 200-some-odd embassies and consular offices around the globe. We seek not to supplant those, to support those, to integrate with those, to work with, yes, but not to supplant. So, with a small group -- we'll be a dozen or so people in my office -- we will focus on those issues that tend to cut across national lines, where media that cut across those national lines focus. We'll have less direct involvement in bilateral issues, if you will, and more involvement in multilateral issues. MODERATOR: Let's start on the back of the wing? Q My name is Christine St. Pierre. I work for the Canadian Television. Are you concerned about the image of the President Bush abroad? I ask this question because this morning in the New York Times I read an article saying that in Germany Mr. Bush is seen as a cowboy. And do -- are you managed to -- are you managing to change this perception abroad? MR. ESKEW: I appreciate the question. I noted in that story too that a parallel was drawn with another American president portrayed as a cowboy, Ronald Reagan, who helped lead the West toward a much greater peace and toward the end of a tyrannical threat to that peace in the form of communism. President Bush is a deliberate, thoughtful man, and a multilateral leader. We're engaged in multilateral relations today, as it relates to Iraq, as it relates to North Korea, as it relates to issues facing Latin America. The image, the news stories, the accounts, they're there. We see them. We read those accounts. We ask to be judged on our results. We ask to be judged on our actions. And we ask to be judged on our interaction with our allies. That interaction continues to this day in a very positive vein. There are differences. We recognize those difference, but there are many more areas of agreement, even in those areas where some of those stories are focused, and we'll choose to underscore those, and we'll do so regularly. Thank you. MODERATOR: We'll take someone up front here. Q Michael Bachfisch (ph), German Business Daily, Handlesblatt. For a long time, the U.S. communication was like Saddam Hussein has a very bad record, it's a record of deception and lies, but it was not very specific. You know, last week, or this week, we have a flurry of information pieces. You just mentioned, you know, Wolfowitz, Armitage, and so on, and so on. Does that mean that there is a shift in the U.S. communication strategy? And would that mean that it was too defensive in the past? MR. ESKEW: Good question, but no. I'd say that it was part of an evolution. Communications is not static. We seek over time to respond to the global opinion climate in a way that reflects some unchanging truths. Those unchanging truths were spelled out by the president in his address to the United Nations. I'd remind you all of those weeks leading up to that mid- September address, when the world and even here at home, critics clamored for the president to turn back on his unilateral approach. No such approach had been undertaken. The president chose his time and chose his moment, and went before the United Nations and rallied the world in the form of a unanimous Security Council vote to set forth some very clear expectations for Saddam. Those expectations were fundamentally based on the concept that this was his final opportunity to disarm. And so today, this week, we're at a point where Mr. Blix himself and the inspectors are acknowledging that Iraq continues to fail at full and active cooperation and compliance. They were in material breach. They are in material breach. And as Mr. Blix and the United Nations make clear where those failure lie, it's incumbent on this administration to shed continued light on the issues before us. And I agree that those remarks and documents this week were of increase specificity. They did provide more detail. The time is right to do that. MODERATOR: Let's take the lady way in the back there. Q Marjorie Freisner (ph) with the Italian News Agency, ANSA. I actually have three questions, if I can. The first question is, is there a distinction of duties between your office and Ms. Beers' office at the State Department or is it an overlap? MR. ESKEW: Would you like me to take -- Q What is the distinction -- MR. ESKEW: -- that on now? Q Okay. Sure. MR. ESKEW: Thank you for the -- again, opportunity to address that. Absolutely not. We work closely with Ms. Beers, Charlotte, and the public diplomacy arm of the State Department. In fact, it is a deliberate part of our effort to not be redundant. We don't seek to supplant the public affairs and public diplomacy functions of other arms of our government. We seek to make sure they are coordinated, that they are consistent, and that they are clear, and enjoy close working relationships with them, and herald successes. Part of our effort, as I said a moment ago, is to, within the White House, provide a platform for the successes and for the work, the hard work of those Foreign Service officers who serve their country very ably around the world. We cheer them on. We offer them ideas, and we listen carefully to theirs. Q Just -- but my understanding is that Charlotte Beers' office is also dedicated to propaganda, to -- not to diplomacy, to spreading the image, to improving the image -- MR. ESKEW: But I would note that -- Q (Inaudible.) MR. ESKEW: -- I would note that the public affairs officers for our Pentagon are responsible for communicating clearly about America from military bases all around the world. That doesn't mean we're supplanting what they do either. No, I think their mission remains unchanged. Our mission is similar in a sense to what we did a year ago, a year-plus ago in Afghanistan, recognizing that the ability of the White House to work across the agencies, to bring together those resources, to respond more quickly, to communicate more clearly, without that mechanism, without that White House-led effort to bring together all those resources, we weren't communicating as effectively. That took nothing away from any other branch of government. In fact, it highlighted their efforts, it gave them more resources, and was widely applauded by those agencies. We are -- I've used an analogy -- we are mortar that holds together many of the bricks that build a wall from which we can project our voice Occasionally we'll put a new brick in that wall, a new idea, but fundamentally we seek to bring them together, hold them together, make them stand straight and work well. Q And my -- MODERATOR: Not now, if you don't mind. And we'll try to get back to you a little bit later. The gentleman right here in the middle. Q Mr. Eskew, thank you and the press club for this very useful encounter. I have a couple of questions. The administration -- MODERATOR: Identify yourself. Q Sorry. My name is Abdul Rahim Foculah (ph) from Al- Jazeera Television. MR. ESKEW: Very good. Q The administration is now putting forth three paragons, if you wish, of disarmament -- South Africa, Kazakstan, and Ukraine. If I may pick on South Africa a little bit, the South Africans, when they decided to disarm in '94, they were just emerging from apartheid and therefore morally speaking they were a towering figure, both on the continent and on the world stage, as epitomized by Nelson Mandela. Economically, they needed the West to rebuild their country, and therefore they had several incentives to disarm. In the case of Iraq, what are you actually offering Saddam Hussein as an incentive to disarm? You -- the administration is already talking about regime. It seems to me that's not much of an incentive. MR. ESKEW: I'll address that briefly. I'll note that I come before you today not as a briefer for the administration. I'll touch on the subjects that we have to deal with, but I'll put it in the context of what our office does. And I'd defer to the expert, Mr. Wolfowitz and others, to discuss some of the historical context. But let's be clear, Saddam Hussein has had a dozen years in which to disarm. The international community has spoken again, and again, and again. The international community spoke clearly, and then did so again in November about this being his final opportunity. I think the -- there is a disincentive to Mr. Hussein, which is that the world community recognizes this is your final chance, and if you fail that chance you will be disarmed. The president has said that, and said it clearly, but so did the rest of the world in the international community. As for the rest of the historical context of your question, I'd like to defer it to others who have studied it more closely. I think if -- it would be a mistake, though, to posit South Africa against Iraq in any way other than to recognize what disarmament means. Mr. Hussein's -- the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm. It has said so with stellar clarity -- stellar clarity. So, it is up to him to do so. And it is up to him to show it. It did begin at the top in South Africa. It began and was shown throughout the interaction with the inspectors where they were shown the needle in the haystack, as Secretary Powell said, rather than being forced to find it. Q My second question is about France and Germany. I mean, the Bush administration is obviously saying that they're not happy with the inspections and that they don't think that the inspections will deliver at the end of the day. The French and the Germans seem to be saying otherwise, that they are satisfied that the inspections are working up to -- up to date. In terms of the info that you rely on to make that sort of determination that the inspections are not working, or the determination that the Europeans are making that the inspections are working, I'm just wondering if you and your allies, the French and the Germans, are reading from a different book? MR. ESKEW: I think we, first of all, note that there are differences of opinion even among friends. And my colleague, Ari Fleischer, addressed, I thought very effectively yesterday the fact that this president believes that when the call is placed, Europe will be on the line. France may choose not to be. But we did speak as an international community with great clarity in resolution 1441. It made clear that Iraq was already in material breach. It made clear there was a timetable. And it made clear that Iraq must disarm. So, yes, on the subject of inspections, to look back at the past is to see very clearly that inspections have led to hide-and-seek, that did not disarm Saddam Hussein. and for us to go down that road again, to once again try to uncover within a country the size of France weapons that they are quite practiced in hiding would be a fool's errand. And that approach was actually reflected in resolution 1441, so we go back to the words of the international community over and over again. MODERATOR: The gentleman in the purple coat. Right there, in the middle. Q Toby Harnden from the London Daily Telegraph. Sir, to be just slightly parochial for a second, in the CIC there were, I think, two British members, one from Downing Street and one from the British Embassy. I was just wondering whether there was going to be a British presence in your office. Secondly, I just wanted to ask you about the kind of day-to-day coordination you might have with Downing Street. And thirdly, about whether you've got satellite offices around the world as you did with the CIC? MR. ESKEW: Very good. Mr. Harnden, the Office of Global Communications was authorized by the president's executive order to coordinate the creation of teams of communicators who would go to international hot spots, areas of high international media interest. We have no such teams on the ground today. The office is made up of U.S. government officials, and yet we do interact with coalition partners frequently, meeting with public affairs officers and others from allied and friendly governments, and reaching out through phone calls, e-mail, so on and so forth. And in the case of the issues that have faced us since last fall when the president said he was going to the United Nations and to Congress on the question of the Iraqi regime, we have communicated on a daily basis with her majesty's government and continue through phone calls and e-mails and meetings to discuss the issues, the coalition, and the other partners in the coalition, or rather ways for us to continue to build that partnership. Number Ten is right at the heart of that effort. Q So, no actin -- (inaudible.) MR. ESKEW: Correct. Correct. MODERATOR: Let's see. The gentleman up here in the front, please. MR. ESKEW: Thank you, Mr. Eskew. My name is Nakano (ph) from Nippon Television. I shall like to understand the difference between your office and other agencies, and I understand that your mission is building up the better communication for America's international communication, but how will you carry out the plan? I mean, what are you going to do in the future? As an examples, if you can tell us any plans for the future, just please tell us. MR. ESKEW: I do appreciate the question, and I had indicated at the beginning I'd be less specific about future plans. I think recent events give us some idea. The ability of our office to help coordinate and pull together information allows us to address major issues on the international. In particular, Iraq, very much on your minds, very much on the minds of your audiences, very much on minds at the White House. I want to say, though, that we will never be 100 percent devoted to the news of the day. That is not our charter. We do have daily elements to our work, but we do seek to look ahead, long-range message strategy, communications strategy for our government, mid-range planning so that we more effectively prepare for events and news cycles that are forthcoming. And I think in marrying those two, the mid-range and the long- range, it will be a mission of our office to support the public diplomacy efforts of our government that encourage open dialogue and greater listening -- listening to emerging voices. Our government listens every day through bilateral relations and multilateral meetings, but there is a need for greater understanding and greater listening, including among emerging voice, and to encourage the blossoming of freedom, the recognition of the dignity of every human life, and the need for security. Our office will help shape programs that achieve that two-way communications -- communication. MODERATOR: Right there. Q Thank you. MR. ESKEW: Yes sir. Q I want to, like my colleagues did -- MODERATOR: Identify yourself Q Oh, sorry. Andrei Sitov from TASS. Like my colleagues did, I want to thank you for coming over here. MR. ESKEW: My pleasure. Q I hope it's a beginning of a new relationship -- MR. ESKEW: Very good. Q -- for us as well as for you. And my questions are about the CIC, as I still do not understand -- will the CICs go on abroad? And also, will Russia be one of the countries that you will involve in the dialogue? And lastly, what will be your access to the president? You say you will be acting as a go-between between the world opinion and the White House. How will you do it technically? Will you report directly to the president? Will you do briefing papers for him? How will it work? Thank you. MR. ESKEW: Very good. In the question of CICs, there are none currently formed. The president grants us the responsibility to coordinate such teams. We last did one for the period of the loya jurga in Afghanistan when we sent a -- dispatched a team to Kabul, interagency, including the tremendous resources of the Office of Broadcast Services of the State Department. And so that ability rests with us and may be exercised in the future. I think on a case-by-case basis, we determined which coalition partners to engage in, and I think the highest level communications with the government, as those reflected by the president's conversation with President Putin yesterday, are -- could in many ways be seen as a sign of further ongoing discussions with a friend. And you also asked how we will directly report, or what our work is in presenting -- we prepare summaries, we advise the national security team. And as the executive order itself states, the office advises on the strategic direction and themes that the United States government agencies use to reach foreign audiences. We work for the president. That's who we advise. So, we will reflect that in a number of means -- meetings, conversations, reports, suggestions, recommendations, and so on. MODERATOR: We'll take one more question -- one only, please. MR. ESKEW: I'm sorry my time is pressed. MODERATOR: One? Okay. Q Okay. I too would like to thank you, especially for your offer to facilitate our access to the White House, because we need that. I would like -- MR. ESKEW: I will rephrase the question after you finish, but go ahead. Q That's not a -- MR. ESKEW: It's a statement. Q I would like to follow up on my colleague from Al-Jazeera -- MR. ESKEW: Certainly. Q -- on the issue of whether France and Germany, the United States, and even the inspectors are all reading from different books. There was a potentially -- there was a story, I believe it was in the New York Times today, that would be potentially damaging to the United States' image is that their book and their -- the United States' book, the United States reads its information, basically relying on the defectors. So that would explain a lot of the more aggressive accusations this week from Deputy Minister (sic) Wolfowitz, and all the speakers -- Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice -- MR. ESKEW: I'm sorry -- so what's the question? Q The question is, for an example of how you operate, how would you on a public relations level, it's an example, deal with this? And the same example, I would ask you if you would -- and how you would deal with the public relations flap that was created in Italy yesterday by Ari Fleischer's comment that Italy was on board and would -- would join the coalition, whereas publicly in Italy that was never said. And basically last night, Prime Minister Berlusconi had to deny it, maybe for a case of public opinion in Italy, but basically had to deny it. MR. ESKEW: Well, I think your question actually does illustrate some of the work we'll do, but maybe not in the way you had intended, and certainly based on the way you framed your statement at the beginning, not the way -- I think there may be a disconnect. We're not a press office. In the case of that defector story, I'm sure my friend Ari, and I'm sure perhaps the State Department or the Defense Department will take questions on that subject and be well informed having looked into the matter. I have not. I read the story. We'll do that frequently. In the case of comments about Italy, I'd note that Ari did take those questions. Ari would be likely to, in many case, take follow-up questions. And while I have not seen the reports yet out of Italy, so I'd be ill-prepared to comment on them specifically, I would say that if -- I'd have to go back to the record and see about Ari's specific comment, but my office wouldn't be the person to call to check that on. Now, what would we do? You want to know well, what would we do about -- let's take that off the table, because I'm not familiar with the stories and the prime minister's comments, because I don't take questions on a day-to-day basis about breaking stories. But if there were an issue of -- an abiding issue, something that occurred over a number of days, where there was misunderstanding between two nations, my office would talk about that across the interagency. We might very well offer ideas on ways to communicate about it, or we would at the least receive information that would clarify what the picture was, perhaps drawing on the reports of our embassy based in that country. And that's a different thing from being able to respond to your questions, so that's not what we do. It's not what we're organized to do. But certainly we like to stay aware of the opinion climate in other countries and the ways in which America is perceived within those climates. That's an important job for us to do. We will continue a call for dialogue. I hope that dialogue continues with us. Even if we are not answering day-to-day press calls, we will look for and seek out opportunities to build relationships with the White House so that America, our policies, our president, and our team can be understood better. And your listening and questions are a reflection of your interest in the same thing, and I thank you for that. MODERATOR: One very quick question from Handlesblatt, and then for our last question we will go to New York again. Q Okay. Coming back to Germany -- MR. ESKEW: Yes sir. Q -- who was a very faithful ally for decades, and a very important ally of the United States, as you work -- don't work on a day-to-day basis but more on a mid-term and long-term basis, what's the strategy of the U.S. government to change the opinion climate in Germany? Q And around the world? MR. ESKEW: Yeah, and around the world. Around the world. (Laughter.) There is no magic wand, but -- magic is not required here. First of all, the truth, our executive order insists that we deal with the truth, so I'll call your attention to the truth, which is it's not as bad as it seems. There's also another truth, which is that we've got problems and difficulties and misunderstandings. Those two are not mutually exclusive. I won't take a country-by-country approach to this question today, although I appreciate it and understand why you ask. I think what we will do in Europe, what we will do in the Middle East and in Muslim nations in Africa and Southeast Asia, what we'll try to do in Latin America is to support and enhance the efforts of our government to speak clearly through new means and new technology, to support broadcasting that achieves those aims, to most of all convey the clarity and consistency, and conviction and compassion that are at the heart of the president's policies and approach to issues, both domestic and international. And I said earlier that we seek, and you've read this in your accounts of the Bush presidency over its two years, that we are led by an MBA, a man who seeks accountability and results. He knows he is to be held accountable. He knows he must seek results and then be judged on those results. So, we have a sense of perspective. When the president's press secretary says that France may not be on the line when the call goes out to Europe, he goes on to say that is a long-time friendship, and that friendship has not and will not go away. And the same would be said to any other nation with which we've had long-time ties, and great bilateral relations, and cultural exchanges. And I would say to each of you, as you think about your country and the climate toward America, that there are some lasting -- indeed, perhaps eternal truths about America and about our relations with the world that will be unchanging if we continue to communicate more clearly and reflect our conviction and our compassion and our hope for greater dialogue. MODERATOR: New York. Q Good morning. I'm Andre Bisconti (sp) with AGL News Syndicate in Italy. The rest of the world receives a tremendous amount of information from the United States -- CNN, Fox, the networks, the Associated Press. Isn't it patronizing to assume that if the rest of the world disagrees, it means that they just don't understand, rather than accepting that maybe they just don't like what they hear? MR. ESKEW: I appreciate the question, but I think I just said in my last answer that there were areas on which we disagree. We accept those disagreements. We don't seek to paper over those disagreements. My answer was that there are areas of common ground. We'll seek to put our best foot forward. Make no bones about it, communications, we'd readily acknowledge, is about putting our best foot forward. But doing so truthfully and accurately includes an acknowledgment of those area where we disagree. MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Tucker. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate it. MR. ESKEW: Thank you all. |