I don't have a good tag line for this argument, but the idea is that because a person/country acted badly to further its interest in situation X, the person/country should not be allowed to act in a contrary manner, with contrary justifications, in nearly-identical situation Y when the person's/country's interests favor it doing so.

Behaving badly on prior occasions is grounds for condemning the actor for its prior behavior and maybe even for its general moral fitness, but it doesn't by itself provide grounds for condemning present behavior.

For example, I think the left is right that US action in Iraq was hypocritical compared to our behavior elsewhere and in Iraq itself during the Reagan years, but to me that still doesn't decide whether invading Iraq was a good idea. The right has the same problem with France.