Earlier in the Bush Administration, when the long commission reports were being published explaining how
Look at State Department spokesman Sean McCormack’s comments last week.
“It’s very clear that there’s a transition underway from Fidel Castro to some other form of government. Unfortunately, at the moment, that form of government is not an elected democracy.”
It used to be that “transition” was good, and “succession” was bad. Easy to understand, and right in line with the normal meaning of the terms.
I don’t think it does the
Didn’t think so.
Anyway, why would the Administration fool with its terminology? I have two guesses.
First, the Administration is clearly engaging in what Senator Obama would call “the audacity of hope.” Back to Mr. McCormack at the State Department:
“Very often, when you have dictatorships that are undergoing change, there are possibilities for change…much of this will be up to the Cuban people working with the international community to help build democratic institutions…”
In other words, the idea is to keep the focus on the concept of change – You fired up? – rather than acknowledge that all we have seen is leadership change within the same system.
More important, the new terminology helps to bury the rhetorical track record established earlier in the Bush Administration.
The 2004 commission report was supposed to “accelerate the demise of Castro’s tyranny,” Secretary Rice said. The report included measures to “undermine the regime’s succession strategy.” And on the day it was released, it was said from Mr. McCormack’s own podium that “there will not be a succession” in
We’ll see what happens tomorrow, and who accepts what.