The Surge Worked? Then Why Are Candidates Being Banned From Elections?

Many Americans, not having to deal with the mayhem that will likely ensue the departure of the American military from Iraq, are too quick to say, "The surge worked." We have no idea whether it will have worked until we leave. Current signs indicate that not much has changed in Iraq. Not only may the surge not have worked, but it bears wondering whether Iraq would have been in a much better situation had the United States not been so ensconced in the last seven years of its history.

Murtha (Graciously?) Admits that the Surge is Working

It was John Murtha's comments over the last couple of years that have caused a great deal of problems for the US military in Iraq. Now that he admits that the surge is working, should he demand our respect? No, but for once he is right.

John Murtha recently went to Baghdad. He had a change of opinion. He now believes the surge is working. I think we would have been better off long ago if he had kept his mouth shut, but now that he is talking, it's good that he's admitting the truth. But he's still suggesting that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only deserve $50 billion in 2008.

Investor's Business Daily calls it Murtha's "Road to Baghdad" conversion. I wouldn't go that far.

Beyond the embarrassing questions now sure to be asked of Pelosi about Murtha's unexpected flip-flop, and Democrats' crass unreasonableness toward a people who risk their lives to exercise the voting rights we take for granted, there's something bigger for Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats running for president to think about:

Murtha, like so many other high-ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, and those seeking the White House, was "absolutely convinced" that surrender was the only answer in Iraq.

Yes, the surge is working. Deaths are way down. Attacks are way down. Success is starting to bear fruit. But I don't think Murtha's admission that the surge is working is a gracious statement. I'm still waiting to see what else is up his sleeve.

Passing the Cost of War On To Future Generations

Democrats in the house are now 'concerned' that the $150 billion cost of the Iraq War will be passed on to future generations. Well, that's one way to look at it...

The Associated Press wrote today that:

Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war on to future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

Since when did "pass[ing] the cost of [anything] on to future generations" stop anybody in Congress, with the exception of a handful of exemplary leaders, such as Ron Paul? We're certainly passing the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on to future generations.

But that's not all. The tax surcharge these congress people are proposing is another experiment in the socialist wealth collection shell game. If you don't make much money, you only pay 2%, but that's okay that we're suckering you poor people, because guess what? The rich SOBs have to pay EVEN MORE!!!

Despite how one may feel about the way we got into Iraq, one of the Constitutional requirements of the federal government is to provide for a defense of the country. Until these loons in the Senate and the House can figure out a way to get us out of this mess, I think there are better ways to pay for the war than a snide tax increase.

How about cutting spending in the myriad areas that they have no constitutional authority over?

Petraeus and al Maliki Disagree? Get the Heck Outta Here!

The newspaper reported this morning that General David Petraeus' and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki's personalities are grating on each other. That is no surprise. Petraeus has an interest to see the Iraqi people succeed in their quest for liberty, while al Maliki has ever only had the interests of the Iraqi Shia' at heart. Updated 8/4/2007

I wonder what would happen if the Iraqi people did their genealogy. Some of the lines are probably already pretty well known. But I'd bet that they'd find in many cases that, regardless of whether they are now Sunni or Shia', somewhere along the line they are related. Is that what it might take to solve the problem of religious hatred in Iraq?

It sure doesn't seem to be working with Nouri al Maliki at the helm.

A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.

Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."

It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.

An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.

You mean like the ones he's already armed?

Just before I left Iraq in 2006, al Maliki became the Iraqi prime minister. All sorts of platitudes were offered, and I found myself somehow optimistic that al Maliki would make things happen. I shouldn't be surprised that I was wrong. Al Maliki seems to be a Shia first and an Iraqi last. It might have been easier if George Bush would have thought of nuances like these before we went running pell mell into Baghdad.

Maybe Petraeus should give Nouri al Maliki an ultimatum. Treat all Iraqis the same or we're outta here. Unfortunately, that's probably just what al Maliki and his Iranian compatriots want.

Update 8/4/2007 Harry Reid says the war is lost.

This [Iraq] war is lost," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated emphatically and without qualification. "There's simply no evidence that the escalation is working," he said recently. It requires "blind hope, blind trust" to believe in progress of any sort.

Maybe we should put him in charge of the US Forces in Iraq. Then again... General Petraeus says differently.

We have achieved . . . a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains against the principal near-term threat, al Qaeda-Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long-term threat, Shia militia extremists as well.

Being called a Shia extremist probably didn't sit well with Shia' extremist Nouri al Maliki. But you know, General Petraeus is right.

Barack Obama and the Iraq War

Either Barack Obama is a very smooth talker, or he is a very sensible individual. I personally think he is a sensible individual. I am contemplating casting my vote for him for President of the United States. I recently read one of his books, and I found a lot in it on which I could agree with him. I was very impressed with what he said in a recent Democratic debate about the war in Iraq.

Here's what he said recently:



Here are a couple of excerpts from the video segment.

"The time for us to ask how we are going to get out of Iraq was before we went in."

"Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them," including the deposing of Saddam Hussein.

"We can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."

"There is no military solution to the problems we face in Iraq."

He also asked how can the Iraqi government think it is important to have American troops there when they just went on vacation for three weeks because it's too hot? If this is what they think of their struggle for liberty, why are we even there?

I do think there are still military solutions to aid in Iraqi liberty, but I agree with Senator Obama that the Iraqi government is taking this all too cavalierly. Perhaps the best thing we could do is tell them, "See ya. We're outta here."

The quandary that I am in personally revolves around two facts:

(1) that I was never in favor of the US invading Iraq in the first place. On this I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Obama. (I think Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate for president who feels this way.)

(2) that I served in Iraq, made many friends, and I'm now invested in their well-being, and I hope that they succeed in their quest for liberty.



George W. Bush and his helpers didn't really ever seem to be interested in the Iraqi success, because at every turn, their plans have been of the sophomoric variety.

I agree with Barack Obama that George W. Bush never made a good case for war in Iraq. I respect that had he been in the Senate in 2002-2003, he would have voted against the invasion.

Another thing I can agree with Barack Obama on is that the Iraq War has become a "dumb war" and George W. Bush should be held accountable for it.

About the Iraq war, it is the following quote which engenders in me the greatest respect for Barack Obama:

Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope.

There's one other thing that it's not too late to get right about this war. And that is the homecoming. The men and women. The veterans who have sacrificed the most. Let us honor their courage by providing the care they need and rebuilding the military they love. Let us be the generation that begins that work.

Truth or Propaganda?

When the Iraq war is being reported, it's critical that we get our news from trustworthy sources, and not from the sources that support our political opinion about the war. It's not uncommon for US news sources to parrot untruths that originate with sources friendly to al Qaeda.

While I was serving in Iraq, it was common to wonder why the news was being reported the way it was, because it didn't seem to be a good picture of what was really happening. Sometimes it was just lazy reporting, or an attempt on the part of the reporter to report that which was most sensational. Sometimes it was fear on the part of the reporter to get outside of the Green Zone to find out what was really going on. In many cases, US news relies on news 'stringers' or local reporters that do the reporting for them. It makes me wonder if they rely on stringers more than they do the military for such reporting.

John Hughes, former editor of the Christian Science Monitor tells of one such story.

A Marine officer whose credibility I trust cites an operation of success in the Fallujah region earlier this month that was reported as a disaster by US and British media companies. His unit had established a new precinct headquarters for Iraqi police, Army troops, and US Marines to patrol and protect a dedicated area. It was well received by the local populace and almost 200 Iraqis volunteered for police recruitment. Insurgents sought to disrupt it but were routed.

Meanwhile, in a separate firefight at a makeshift suicide vehicle factory, three separate suicide bombers were killed, two suicide trucks were discovered and blown up, and foreign and other fighters were killed or captured. On the defending side, one civilian and one policeman were wounded, with no US or other casualties. "The enemy was killed in his tracks; his best weapon was discovered before it could cause any harm," says the officer, "but Western media reported no enemy killed in these operations, 28 civilians killed, and 50 civilians wounded. We are getting demolished," the Marine officer says, "by nefarious enemy media outlets … 'reporters' or 'sources' for Arab and other news agencies either on insurgent payrolls or who have known sympathies with insurgent operations, and by collective Western media that are often being manipulated by enemy elements. What incredible economy of effort the enemy is afforded when US media is their megaphone. Why spend precious resources on developing your own propaganda machine when you can make your opponent's own news outlets scream your message louder than you could ever have hoped to do independently?"

Do we think it's important to know the truth, or to propagate those ideas that most closely match our opinion of whether we should be in Iraq? I think that, regardless of what our opinion is, what's true is true. That's what should be reported.

Al Qaeda and al Jazeera are not reliable sources of news. And reliable news sources shouldn't rely on them. Even if it is more exciting than the truth.

"A Perpetual State of War"

Of the issues on which I agree and disagree with former Vice President Al Gore in his new book The Assault on Reason, one to which I highly subscribe is the unhealthiness of being in "a perpetual state of war" with terrorism.

Sometime in late 2002 I remember hearing a radio news report wherein it was suggested that if we attacked Iraq, it would be likely that we would have to occupy it for up to 12 years. How strange, then, that it turns out that the Bush Administration did not have a post-invasion plan to undergo a successful occupation of the country.

Several members of Congress asked the Bush administration what its occupation plan was for Iraq.

...Secretary Rumsfeld said that he wasn't certain we would have any responsibility at all. "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide," Rumsfeld said. At that very moment, we now know, he was attempting to shut down the program at the U.S. Army War College that was focused on post-invasion stabilization. (Gore, p. 190)

Others in the Bush administration said that the Iraq invasion and regime change would be a cakewalk. Surely, they knew better.

In The Assault on Reason, Al Gore makes this statement:

[If we subscribe to] the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch as far into the future as we can imagine. These claims must be rejected, and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation. (p. 226)

If for no other reason than that Gore's statement is a challenge to all future presidential administrations, I find his statement very enlightening and profound. But it's more than that. It teaches (reminds?) us that we can't afford to elect establishmentarians to office. The perpetual state of increasing government--choreographed by background shadow puppeteers--in the United States makes me wonder how much differently Al Gore would have acted had he been president on 9/11. The fact that Al Gore was Vice President in an administration that gave a great deal of military and other concessions to the Chinese adds to my hypothesis, but for my current purposes, I will simply say that I agree completely with the above-quoted statement.

The fact that I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place has been detailed in these pages. The negative ramifications of the invasion are becoming all the more apparent as the days and months go by. But regardless of whether we supported the invasion or not, the main focus of our criticism--now that we are there--is why we haven't done of better job of achieving our goals. (Sort of reminds me of a border fence that hasn't been built yet...)

Most negative ramifications of our Iraq invasion and occupation accrue due to the inelegant way the Bush administration 'planned' for the post-invasion. If plans had been made, my opinion is that the country would have been stabilized by now. But I am subscribing ever more readily now to a personal theory that 'no plan' was the plan.

How do we square the statements that we would be in Iraq for 12 years with administration statements that it will be a cakewalk, and that we don't need to plan for occupation? It can only be squared in the desire for the Bush administration to be in a perpetual state of war.

All of you who voted for president Bush were stupid. If you did it twice, you're really stupid (unless you've repented, as I know some of you have). Let's hope that the next administration turns back the tidal wave of executive branch power accretions. Incidentally, there are several candidates for president in both major parties whom we cannot hope to expect will turn back that tide. Perhaps not surprisingly, those candidates are indicated in national polls as being the most popular candidates for their political parties. Who makes these polls? Are they accurate? Are we really still that stupid?

How perpetually unfortunate.

Learning to Hate from an Interesting Source

It is interesting that hatred between various religious sects in Iraq has gotten worse since the US arrived in 2003. Interestingly enough, western influence seems to have caused similar problems in India.

I am in Chicago this week, attending a computer conference. On this trip, I have had the good fortune of meeting two Indian men--one who is a Muslim, and one who belongs to the Hindu religion. Their similarity of social perspective is very striking.

I met Zaqardi while flying from Salt Lake City to Chicago. I asked him if there is a great deal of animosity and bloodshed between Muslims and Hindu followers in India. he said that it was not as bad as people in the west think it is. Interestingly, though, he pointed out that animosity does flare up regularly around elections, when--rather than accentuate their own strengths--the various candidates begin speaking epithets against their opponents in order to gain votes. I wonder where they learned that from?

Today at lunch, I had a fascinating conversation with Devdatt. I asked him the same questions. He agreed that the problems between Islam and Hindu are very exaggerated in the western press, but that there was a time when little if any animosity existed between the two great faiths. From his perspective, it was when the Brits came to India to exercise their benevolence, that a hatred between Muslim and Hindu was struck. Hmmm. Didn't they do that in Iraq once, as well?

We pause now for this message: Ron Paul is right.

I suggested to Devdatt that America and the west would do better off if we would mind our own business. He agreed so readily that he could not contain his laughter, which had the effect of dislodging a portion of his partially-chewed sandwich from his mouth. He also agreed that if America would stop tilting at every windmill in the world, the world would actually be better off simply observing and learning from America's example.

P.S. -- Vote for Ron Paul!

Free the Film!

If a fact had been carefully hidden from the American public, and you were a public broadcasting service, wouldn't you want to make the public aware of it? Apparently not if you're PBS. Why? Because of the entertainment value that accrues from an America-vs-Islam perspective that you want to maintain? I wish I knew.

I recently sent an e-mail to the Ombudsman of PBS, asking him why PBS would not air the film "Islam vs. Islamists". Several people have viewed the finished product, and think it is not only very pertinent but also very professionally done. My correspondence said:

I recently found out that PBS will not be showing the film "Islam vs. Islamists" as part of the "America at a Crossroads" series. Islam vs. Islamists would make a unique contribution to our understanding of Islam--something that no other episodes that have been included in the series would tell--by showing that there are many Muslims who support democracy and liberty. With whom do I correspond to express my displeasure at the fact that "Islam vs. Islamists" has been spiked?

I heard guest Martin Burke on The Right Balance this morning explaining the motivations behind PBS' spiking of the film. The producers and advocates of "Islam vs Islamists" has started a website called FreeTheFilm.net. Instead of providing a balanced view of moderate vs. radical Islam, PBS included in its "America at the Crossroads" lineup a film produced by PBS own Robert MacNeil. Instead of illustrating the divide between moderates and radicals, MacNeil's is essentially a hit piece that praises the radical facets of Islam and denigrates America in the process. Several members of Congress have requested that, because it is so balanced, PBS air the documentary. The likelihood of that is very slim. And more problematically, PBS owns the broadcasting rights. For now, you can download the movie trailer, and request a copy of the DVD (should it ever become available, PBS?) on FreeTheFilm.net.

By the way, the PBS Ombudsman's response to my e-mail was the following:

Dear Mr. Staheli:

Thank you for writing to PBS regarding your concerns about "Islam vs.
the Islamists." We welcome the opportunity to clarify that this film,
along with others, is still in the production and editing process.

"Islam vs. the Islamists" was developed as part of the AMERICA AT A
CROSSROADS initiative, a competitive grant project created to explore
our post-9/11 world. The film was chosen to move forward in the
production process because it offers an important examination of a
complex topic. The programming teams at WETA, the series' presenting
station, and PBS have asked the film's producers to meet our
editorial standards, which is a requirement for all the content that
is presented on our schedule. These standards are posted on our Web site at:

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_standards.html

The PBS programming staff, in collaboration with the independent
producers who partner with us, works very hard to ensure that all the
programs it distributes to public television stations meet high
standards of quality and journalistic excellence. This commitment
accounts for PBS' extraordinary track record in Emmy, DuPont
Columbia, and Peabody awards as well as PBS' long-standing position
as the most trusted public institution in America.

We look forward to continuing to work with the producers on the
development of this documentary. Other films that were not completed
in time for the April 15 premier are currently being scheduled to air
later this year. It is our hope that we will be able to add "Islam
vs. the Islamists" to this list.

Again, thank you for writing to PBS. We appreciate your concern for
our programming.

Sincerely,

Felicia
PBS Viewer Services

From dictionary.com, the definition of Ombudsman is:

A person who regurgitates the party line when receiving complaints from outside entities.

No...actually, I was sort of kidding. The real definition is this:

A person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems, as between employees and an employer or between students and a university.

Maybe PBS needs to get a new ombudsman.

Spiking Islamic Democracy

When's the last time you sent in your donation to PBS? Hint for US Citizens: if you haven't filed your tax return, you have until midnight tonight (unless you live in the Northeast).

Update: April 18th How National Public Radio led the charge in the 1990's in dismissing the threat of jihad.

Radical Islamists do not support democracy. From his newest book, The War of Ideas, Walid Phares writes:

Salafists, Wahabis, Takfiris, Tablighis, and other Sunni Islamists reject the concept of pluralism, and radically oppose the rule of the people. Only Allah and his teachings...are the basis for governance. [Shias] installed an Islamic Republic in Iran, but its mandate is believed to be divinely inspired and not subject to the approval of civil society. (p. XVIII)

It appears that Radical Liberalists in the United States want you to think that all Muslims share this sentiment. This is not true. But PBS is doing its best to keep you from knowing that.

Due to pressure from Islamist groups, PBS, who unfortunately owns the rights to the film entitled "Islam vs. Islamists", has shelved it, claiming that the reasoning for the shelving is because "it needs work", and that it might still be shown in the future. Did you just see that pig fly by?

Even more bizarre is the claim that the film would "demonize Islam" when in reality the result is the exact opposite. Many Muslims prefer democracy to the "7th Century" drivel that God makes all the rules and the radical lunatics are to enforce them. How PBS finds this demonizing is beyond me.

"I am incredulous that PBS would invest so much of our tax money into contracting professionals for a documentary on a subject -- the struggle for the soul of Islam -- which is one of the most vital debates of the 21st century and then censor its release," said Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy who is featured in the documentary.

Mr. Jasser visited with Greg Allen on The Right Balance this morning, expressing his dismay that a tax-funded organization would act this way.

I agree. As surprised as I am by the liberal reaction to the attempt to foster democracy in the Middle East, this has to be one of the worst instances of spiking relevant insight into the process. I have come to the conclusion that American liberals think that Muslims are incapable of democracy. What a shallow, self-serving viewpoint.

Please contact the PBS Ombudsman, and let him know you want to see a documentary that shows that many Muslims prefer democracy. What's demonic or divisive about that?

Update April 18th: From his book Future Jihad, Walid Phares explains to us that we haven't been getting our tax money's worth for quite some time now.

More worrisome [than the lack of coverage of jihad strategy by private news networks] would be PBS, C-SPAN, and NPR. Funded by US taxpayers, these gigantic networks have dedicated less than 0.1 percent of content to what would become the main threat to the nation over the years. NPR would outdo every other medium: It actually aired more programs endorsing the apologists--those who denied a jihadi threat--than all other U.S. media combined. The pounding by NPR and the public networks over ten years further disguised the intensity of the Wahabi penetration [into American government and society]. (p. 177)

Here's some more information on the controversy from the CNS News service.

The Cost of Abandonment

The Tet Offensive was a major American defeat in the Viet Nam war, right? Wrong. It came to be seen as such because Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, and others convinced a significant portion of Americans that such was the case. From that point on, public opinion went downhill, and the ability of the US military to serve its purpose in Indochina went with it.

Then Richard Nixon became hounded by the Democrats. Seeing potential impeachment on his horizon, President Nixon resigned. Thereafter, there was no more stomach for the Viet Nam war. So we just packed up and left. And the Vietnamese lived happily ever after, right?

Wrong.

Liberals never cared about the Vietnamese. They only cared about winning. And that meant that that America had to lose in Vietnam. The only Vietnamese that liberals really ever cared about were the relatively few who were just like them--who lusted for power and domination over their fellow man.

American liberals got just what they wanted, and they never apologized for the mayhem. Because they won!

Following the unceremonious departure of America from Vietnam, thousands of Vietnamese were rounded up, tortured, and killed. Tens of thousands were forcibly relocated. Tens of thousands more fled the country on makeshift boats, many of which were not seaworthy, causing thousands more to die. The carnage of man's domination over man spilled over into neighboring Cambodia, where terrorists forced nearly everyone (but themselves) from their homes. Ultimately the lives of 2 million Cambodians were taken from them by the relative few who knew what was best for them. This amounted to nearly one third of the entire Cambodian population.

Abandonment is costly. Is Iraq different? It's pretty hard to say, but I think not. Will the same thing happen in Iraq when we leave? The likelihood is much greater that it will than is the likelihood that man is causing global warming. But which problem are liberals focused on?

I don't know for sure what would happen if the US and coalition forces exercised as precipitous an exit from Iraq as we did from Vietnam. But liberals don't care. Because they will have won.

The Tet Offensive was a major setback for the Vietcong--until Walter Cronkite convinced the American media, and the media in turn convinced the American people--that it wasn't. In much the same way, today, liberals highlight the negative incidents in Iraq, unfairly convincing a majority of Americans that Operation Iraqi Freedom has no chance for success. Our resolve is flagging in just the same manner as it did in Vietnam.

Because liberals don't care about Iraqis, except to use them as poster children when they are in pain. Liberals only care about winning. And in their minds, that means that America must lose the OIF campaign.

More Guantanamo Revelations

More revelations are coming from the Guantanamo Bay facility about treatment of prisoners. And it's not pretty. If it's really happening, we should be outraged. But it's hard to tell because there is so much dissimulation when it comes to the facts.

Prisoners tell of being isolated for long periods of time. They speak of being physically abused. They speak of being mentally abused. They speak of having to sleep on stone floors with nothing but thin blankets.

Their torturers were becoming "aggressive and unstable". It became clear to some of them that if they didn't cooperate with their captors, they would not live to see the next day.

Because of such irrational behavior, the prisoners feel forced to admit their guilt, and any pictures of them at all are shown only in rare times of relaxation, when the cameras can catch smiles on their faces.

On at least one occasion, a group of prisoners was lined up along a wall, their heads blindfolded, and the thugs behind them could be heard loading their rifles. Several of this group of prisoners were sure that they were about to be executed.

For acts as despicable as these, the handlers at Guantanamo should be...wait...

Just a sec...

Oh, this happened in Iran? To British hostages?

Well, never mind. It's okay then.

No, it's really not. If someone did this to you, would you think it was okay?

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'."

"After that comment someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut."

It's beyond the height of irony that liberals chastise the Bush administration for supposed torture in Guantanamo, but give the Iranian regime a free pass! If it's wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter who does it. So let's see, liberals, if you have any integrity.

Call the Iranians out! I dare you.

Whether or Not to "Insert [Ourselves] into an International Crisis"

Prior to leaving for its two-week spring break, the US House of Representatives was not able to consider a resolution condemning Iran for taking 15 British hostages. The Senate passed a resolution of condemnation, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not let a similar resolution come to a vote in the House.

Pelosi's press secretary had this to say about the failure to introduce the resolution:

The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful.

Shortly thereafter, Speaker Pelosi flew off to the Middle East to insert herself into an international crisis.

At least the whole Congress wasn't involved, I guess...

Do you think her insertion was "helpful"?