ARMEY VS. ARMY :

As previously noted, the Times story of the other day seems to be far less than first meets the eye : Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy (TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER, August 16, 2002, NY Times). But the one interesting comment from a Republican who actually is a Party leader was House Majority Leader Dick Armey's :

"My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants," Mr. Armey said. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."

Now, from what I could recall from memory, Mr. Armey has opposed most American interventions in recent years and the White House response to his remarks seemed to jibe with the idea that this was something we'd expect of Mr. Armey, rather than some radical break with his past and with the administration. And his own spokesman suggested that Mr. Armey even had to be coaxed into supporting the initial 1991 war against Iraq : Bush mum on plan for attacking Iraq (Dave Boyer, August 10, 2002, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Armey spokesman Terry Holt said the majority leader's remarks are "consistent with where he was in 1991," prior to the U.S.-led invasion in the Persian Gulf war. He said Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney called Mr. Armey and made the case to him, and the lawmaker eventually supported the administration's decision to go to war. Mr. Armey believes "the bar is very high when you go to war," Mr. Holt said.

Curiosity piqued, I took a necessarily haphazrd Google around the 'net to see what else I could find out about the new darling of the normally internationalist Left. Here are a few highlights.
The U.S. can't go it alone (Bob Mccord, November 05, 1999, Arkansas Times)

The defeat of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the Senate was scary. [...]

It's not the only evidence of isolationism among Republicans. They voted against sending troops to Kosovo, they stopped draft registration, they refuse to pay the dues the nation owes the United Nations, their budget bills cut foreign aid by 14 percent and they won't agree to pay for negotiating the peace settlement in the Middle East. One of their leaders, Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, said: "I've been to Europe once. I don't have to go again."

Freedom, Responsibility and Foreign Policy (Dick Armey, Remarks as prepared for delivery before The School for Advanced International Studies, June 19, 1997)

I'm not sure this is appropriate for this august institution, but let me begin by telling a story from Spy magazine. Spy, as you know, is a journal run by truly sick individuals that I of course have never read. Well, one day a few years ago some prankster at Spy decided to call members of Congress and quiz them on foreign issues. These interviews generally went well until he asked, "Congressman, what do you think of U.S. policy concerning the Republic of Freedonia?" As all of you know, Freedonia does not exist -- except as the fictional country in the movie The Mouse that Roared. Unfortunately, that did not stop several members from offering their considered opinion on the subject anyway. "I think our policy there needs thorough reexamination," and so on. Very embarrassing.

For the record, if they had asked me that question, I would have cheerfully admitted I don't have a clue about Freedonia or a lot of other places for that matter. I have never made any pretense to expertise in international affairs. In my previous lifetimes as an economics professor and a member of the loyal minority in Congress, I could have told you more than you'd want to know about price theory and capital gains differentials (and probably did). But to this day I'd be lucky to even give you the current name of Zaire -- I mean, Congo.

Statement by Rep. Dick Armey on Authorizing the Deployment of U.S. Troops to Kosovo (Delivered on the House Floor, March 11, 1999)

Mr. Speaker, we do have an enduring interest in a peaceful Europe. What happens in the Balkans is important to our security. We must do all we reasonable can to prevent further killing and suffering in these troubled lands.

But I cannot in good conscience support the proposed deployment we're debating today. I believe it has been poorly considered and is unlikely to achieve our desired ends.

I make this objection on purely practical grounds. Its central flaw is that depends on negotiating an agreement with the Serbian dictator -- the very man who is responsible for the Balkan horrors in the first place. He is a brutal killer, and we can have no confidence that he or his followers will respect any agreement that might be reached.

On the other side, will be the Kosovar Liberation Army, a new formation with little experience in these matters. Its cause may be noble, but there's little reason to hope its leadership will be able to discipline its members. The agreement will, after all, come far short of their desire for true independence.

Our troops may thus find themselves opposed by freelance opponents on both sides of this brutal conflict, opponents undisciplined by any central authority. The resulting bloodshed may produce events that are far more destabilizing than those the Administration fears today. This could be another Somalia.

For these and other reasons stated today I believe this deployment is unwise and must be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take a fresh look at our policy towards the world's outlaw governments -- not just in Serbia, but in Iraq, North Korea and elsewhere. These rogue regimes, are without question, the greatest security threat we face today.

The Administration response to them has been haphazard containment efforts, loose arms control arrangements, or other negotiations.

Containment and negotiation, however, can do little to solve the underlying problem--the very existence of these regimes.

What we need is a new version of the Reagan Doctrine of the 1980s. A policy that seeks not to contain these regimes -- but to replace them with democratic alternatives.

Last year, Congress began to shape exactly such a policy towards Iraq with our passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. We need to consider similar legislation for other rogue states including Serbia. [...]

The lesson of the Cold War should be clear: True peace, justice and security come not from negotiating with inhuman regimes, but transcending them. Even the most enduring dictatorship can melt before the power and ideals of the United States.

THE BOOMERANG EFFECT (Justin Raimondo, September 20, 2000, Antiwar.com)

The lies of politicians often come back to haunt them, but rarely has a brazen fib boomeranged so quickly. The Bushies may have thought that Warner-Byrd was dead and buried, but rumors of its death turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. Looks like it's been resurrected by those mischievous House Republicans, who restored it to their version of the 2001 military appropriations budget. The measure would cut off money for nearly 6,000 United States ground forces in Kosovo by April 1, unless Congress votes for an extension - and once again the Bush camp is trying mightily to drive a stake through its heart. The House and Senate versions of the budget must be reconciled before Congress adjourns for the year, and this is the last sticking point. "We feel pretty strongly about it," said Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader. "The question is, how long will we have people over there, and when will we have a clear definition of what they're doing?" With the same fine appreciation for legalistic hairsplitting displayed by our current President, Bush and his advisors are reiterating their "legislative overreach" argument - but not too loudly, in the hope no one will take notice, the House Republicans will capitulate in the end, as usual, and the whole issue will go away.

Bush on Spot as G.O.P. Pushes to Pull : Out G.I.'s From Kosovo (ERIC SCHMITT, 9/15/00, NY Times)

House and Senate negotiators are fighting over a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Kosovo, renewing a clash with President Clinton and putting Gov. George W. Bush on the spot again, since he lobbied Senate Republicans to drop a similar provision earlier this year.

At issue is a proposal to cut off money for nearly 6,000 United States ground forces in Kosovo by April 1, forcing their withdrawal unless Congress authorizes an extension.

Two Texans demand strings on funds to IMF (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, MARCH 13, 2000 )

Two Texas Republicans trained as economists have wedged a lever under the world's financial architecture.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Irving and Sen. Phil Gramm have had enough of the International Monetary Fund's efforts to control the world's finances.

US CONGRESS SPLIT OVER REPORT ON IMF, WORLD BANK REFORMS.

The report of the US congressional advisory commission chaired by economist Allan Meltzer calling for a sharp contraction in the IMF and the
World Bank unleashed a strong bipartisan reaction in Congress yesterday, reports the Financial Times (p.7). The report was released at a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday, says the story, noting that two leading Republican congressmen-House speaker Dennis Hastert and House majority leader Dick Armey-had earlier called a press conference to welcome the report. But it was attacked by Democratic lawmakers.

House minority leader Richard Gephardt said the Meltzer report "illustrates an extreme neo-isolationist attitude" towards the Fund and the Bank. "Instead of proposing thoughtful reform, the report takes a slash-and-burn approach."

The political impact of the report is not clear, but the welcoming of it by Armey, a longstanding IMF critic, suggests that the Republicans may try to use it to attach further conditions on the IMF as they consider legislation that would help fund a debt relief initiative for the poorest countries.

Say what you will about Mr. Armey, but that looks like a pretty consistent and principled record of isolationism to me and one on which he's been right more often than not, including one could argue in his initial opposition to the First Gulf War. Particularly notable on this list of issues is that, with the exception of Iraq, it seems likely that he's taken the exact opposite position to the editors of the NY Times on every one. Odd, isn't it, that, while Mr. Armey hasn't budged, the Times and others on the Left have suddenly seen the wisdom of the Leader's--how did Dick Gephardt put it?--"extreme neo-isolationism"? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 17, 2002 7:16 AM