I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.I’m opposed to it —
On general principles I’m opposed to it!Chorus: He’s opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He’s opposed to it!For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And I’ve kept yelling since I commenced it,
I’m against it!Lyrics by Bert Kalmar from Horse Feathers
In his post this morning Jeff Medcalf of Caerdroia notes that the Bush Administration can’t win for losing in foreign policy. Whether disengagement, unilateral action, or multilateral action, it’s wrong:
The only consistency in the anti-Bush critics on foreign policy is that they are against whatever President Bush does, regardless of the outcome.
The obvious response to this is that different circumstances call for different approaches. What I’d like to hear is how the circumstances are different and what approach should have been used. I’ve been listening pretty closely but apparently not closely enough because I haven’t heard that analysis. What I have heard is how the critics would do the same things but, mysteriously, execute them better.
The one such analysis I do recall was John Kerry’s call for two-party negotiations with North Korea which, considering the influence that China has with the People’s Republic, I thought was pretty nonsensical.
As usual I’m being sincere: if anyone can point me to such analyses (from critics in positions of responsility) I’d like to see them.
