Did Ellison feign an emotional breakdown during his opening remarks and leave the hearing to evade follow-up questions from Peter King and others—concrete questions about Muslim radicalization that he preferred not to respond to—or were his tears sincere? Either way, it is not clear which is worse: a dime-a-dozen obfuscating politician, or a politician whose emotions so dominate him that he cannot carry out his responsibilities.And speaking of tears as a ruse, here's Ellison channeling Smokey:
While we are on the topic of strategic-weeping, it is relevant to note that authoritative Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Hajar, recommend deceiving infidels with crocodile tears: "Revealing one thing while secretly planning another is the essence of deception; moreover, the hadith incites [Muslims] to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels" (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.142). This is not to conclude that Ellison is taking lessons from Hajar, but that even the most rabid jihadists—not just American politicians—are aware of the power of tears as a ruse.
Well if there are tears in my eyes
They're only there just to fool the public.
'Cause when it comes down to spreadin' "truth,"
Well, Peter, that's quite a diff'rent subject.
Don't let my sad expression
Give you the wrong impression--
I'm not really sad, oh, I'm madder than mad.
You've gone and insulted us bad.
I'm farklempt like Pagliacci, I'd add.
Now there's some fake things known, my dear,
But ain't nothin' faker here
Than the tears of a clown, when the kafir's around.