Groucho Marx had a song that could be the anthem of the New York Times editorial page “ Whatever it is, I’m against it!”

Groucho was trying to be funny. The Times is just trying to be a serious organ of the #resistance to President Trump. The result of the Times setting its watch by whatever Trump opposes: When Trump flips, the Times flips.

On Jan. 19, the Times’ editorial board railed against the White House after former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explained that the U.S. planned to “maintain a military presence in Syria focused on ensuring ISIS cannot re-emerge.”

Tillerson said, “Our military mission in Syria will remain conditions-based.”

The Times was aghast, claiming Tillerson's words meant U.S. engagement "without any end date or public benchmarks for success."

“As of last month, there were about 2,000 American troops in Syria — up from 500 a year ago — a mix of engineering units and Special Operations units that fight and train with local militias in the battle against the Islamic State. Now that we know they will be there indefinitely, who can say the number won’t go higher and the mission won’t creep more?” the board asked in an editorial titled “ Syria Is Now Mr. Trump’s War.”

It added, “Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking.”

Though the Times agreed that the eradication of ISIS is a noble goal (how big of them), it went on to argue that the goals in Syria, which include a stable country ruled by President Bashar Assad, "are so sweeping they may be unattainable, thus leaving American troops there in perpetuity.”

The editorial concluded by quoting Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who asked, “How does this not become an unending war?”

Fast-forward to Dec. 19, to Trump's surprise announcement that he’d withdraw 2,000 American troops from Syria within 30 days, and the Times’ editorial board is attacking the president. Again.

“There is no indication that Mr. Trump has thought through the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, including allowing ISIS forces to regroup and create another crisis that would draw the United States back into the region,” the board said in an editorial titled, “ Trump’s Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His Advisers.”

It added, “An American withdrawal would also be a gift to Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, who has been working hard to supplant American influence in the region and who, on Thursday, enthusiastically welcomed the decision, saying, ‘Donald’s right.’ Another beneficiary is Iran, which has also expanded its regional footprint. It would certainly make it harder for the Trump administration to implement its policy of ratcheting up what it calls ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran.”

The board even argues that the “reversing course” in Syria undercuts “American interests.”

Look, it’d be one thing if the Times argued simply that it hates the way in which Trump decided to end U.S. involvement in Syria. I would agree with them: His slapdash, by-the-seat-of-his-pants foreign policy decisions are dangerous and will have far-reaching consequences.

Where the Times errs, however, is in pretending that it has an argument beyond its (correct) belief that Trump’s erratic, clownish behavior is dangerous. All that stuff the board writes this week about undercutting “American interests” and “American influence in the region,” – those concerns all applied in Jan. 19, back when the Times was accusing Trump of getting the U.S. into an endless war. But now that the president has decided suddenly to pull American troops out of Syria, well, only now do those issues matter.