The Economist takes a shot at Bush’s consistency on foreign policy

Last week I was complaining about obvious inconsistencies in the Bush administration’s approach to foreign policy. On justifying war with Iraq, dealing with the North Korean crisis, and even tacitly supporting a coup in Venezuela, the White House’s approach to foreign policy has repeatedly lacked coherence and consistency.

It prompted the LA Times’ James Mann, for example, to write, “It is almost as if the administration has been running its foreign policy out of two different sides of its brain.”

This week, The Economist noted that the administration was not only inconsistent in its arguments for war in Iraq, it couldn’t even keep straight what to do about a resolution authorizing force.

“America has zigged and zagged about a second resolution,” the British magazine noted. “On January 31st Mr. Bush said he did not need one. On February 24th he joined Britain and Spain in proposing one. In early March American officials were saying they opposed the idea of new ‘benchmarks.’ On March 12th Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said ‘the president very much appreciated the United Kingdom’s benchmarks.’ At a press conference on March 6th Mr. Bush said America would demand a vote on a second resolution because ‘it’s time for people to show their cards.’ On March 17th America, Britain and Spain pulled away from a second resolution, without a vote.”

To be sure, The Economist is a conservative magazine. It supports the war and has largely endorsed Bush’s domestic and international agenda. Yet even Bush’s conservative British allies can’t help but notice that this White House can’t seem to keep its story straight.