Congressman Meant 'No Ill' With Al Qaeda Comment to Cheney Aide (Delahunt)

FOX News ^ | 6/26/2008 | Chad Pergram

[james500]

A Democratic congressman who was accused of suggesting that Al Qaeda may want to harm a prominent White House official told FOX News he meant "no ill" by the comment.

Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt made the remark Thursday while questioning David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney

[Rome2000]

Never heard of this story, this Brooks understood the concept of honor!

Sumner Assault

On May 22, 1856, Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner with his Gutta-percha wood walking cane in the Senate chamber because of a speech Sumner had made three days previous criticizing President Franklin Pierce and Southerners who sympathized with the pro-slavery violence in Kansas ("Bleeding Kansas"). In particular, Sumner lambasted Brooks' kinsman, Senator Andrew Butler, who was not in attendance when the speech was read, describing slavery as a harlot, comparing Butler with Don Quixote for embracing it, and mocking Butler for a physical handicap. Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, who was also a subject of abuse during the speech, suggested to a colleague while Sumner was orating that "this damn fool [Sumner] is going to get himself shot by some other damn fool."

At first intending to challenge Sumner to a duel, Brooks consulted with fellow South Carolina Rep. Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt instructed him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and suggested that Sumner occupied a lower social status comparable to a drunkard due to the supposedly coarse language he had used during his speech. Brooks thus decided to attack Sumner with a cane.

Two days after the speech, on the afternoon of May 22, Brooks confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. Brooks was accompanied by congressman Laurence M. Keitt, also of South Carolina, and Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia. Brooks said, "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner on the head with his thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head. Sumner was trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until he ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until he broke his cane, then quietly left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who was holding a pistol and shouting "Let them be!"

[YankeeinOkieville]

As Mark Levin pointed out on his show today, why was this non-committee member even allowed to take part in the questioning? That should be asked of San Fran Nan as well.

[Witter]

If that's true. That's the most outrageous thing I've ever heard of. This committee was run with no honor or integrity and they did not deserve the descent answers these men provided.

[Lancey Howard]

Delahunt is just another worthless pantload who is routinely re-elected by Massachusetts.
In other words, (yawn).

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup, I wrote up a capsule summary on the incident on FR last year. Many history books do not accurately describe the incident. When I was in publik skrool I read it to mean some great Northern savior (Sumner) was speaking out against slavery and was beaten by some Southern psychotic. When I read the actual accounts, it was obviously anything but.

Best boiled down to a demogogue viciously berating a well-respected member of the Senate (rather than sticking to attacking the institution of slavery) and having his ass handed to him by a relative of the victim of the verbal assault (since Sen. Butler was too old and in poor health to demand satisfaction — in fact, Butler was so much of a gentleman that he supposedly was willing to let the matter drop had he been present).

I’ll also add that Sumner was likely expecting such a physical attack (or proposal for a duel) so he could score political points or become a martyr. Even the depiction in the cartoon is propagandic, trying to make Sumner look noble when his mouth proved himself a coward. In no small measure did Sumner’s contributions helped push the nation towards civil war.

[Diogenesis]

Delahunt is now shown by the transcript to be
just another PROVEN Democrat liar.

[Past Your Eyes]

"What an asshole. Those he doesn’t agree with deserve whatever happens to them. I really can’t stand those elitists."

Massachusetts is loaded with people like that, which is why we call them Massholes up here in New Hampshire. Be glad you don't live any closer to them than you do.

[Laverne]

And Mark is correct on this. The ranking republican issued his objection regarding Delahunt’s desire to question, and Nadler agreed it was a violation. Then, one of the dems (I can’t remember his name) waited until there were no pubbies left in the room, and gave Delahunt his time, and Mr. Nadler essentially said: well the pubbie ain’t here so he can’t object and he clearly doesn’t care about this issue .. so go ahead. (my paraphrase).

I watched the hearings last night and was stunned at what happened. The dems are openly supporting AQ now, and Delahunt’s invitation to AQ to target Addington (and make no mistake about it it IS what he did) should render him to resignation in shame. I sent Mrs. Pelosi an email requesting such an action.

Alas, just read today’s papers; hardly a mention of it. Instead the liberal lame media thinks Addington is the clymer.

Corruption in the media is growing and its going to get uglier and uglier. WHen this type of behavior is not shouted down, not shunned, then we are in a world of hurt.

[csvset]

History of dueling in America

[No Truce With Kings]

Every once in a while a Democrat gets caught blurting out what he (or she) really believes.

[vamoose]

As Mark Levin pointed out on his show today, why was this non-committee member even allowed to take part in the questioning?

Here's the answer:
Delahunt is not a member of the Judiciary subcommittee that held the hearing. In fact he's not a member of the full Judiciary Committee either. When subcommittee chair Nadler attempted to recognize Delahunt to speak, Rep King, R-IA, objected and said that only committee members could ask questions, and that Delahunt was not a committee member, to which Nadler said, "The gentleman's objection is, unfortunately, grounded in the rules of order." (Dems hate rules unless endangered species are involved.) Delahunt was not allowed to speak, at least at that time. Later, in the 2nd round of questioning, Mel Watt, D-NC, yielded his time to Delahunt. King was not there to object, but Watt said he had sent King a note informing him of his intention to yield time to Delahunt. So Delahunt proceeded.

[rabidralph]

Disgusting!

[metesky]

Delahunt is and always has been, a horse’s arse. Every once in a while he should be reminded that he’s a fag replacement.

[Fox_Mulder77]

That was fun to read, thanx!

[BooksForTheRight.com]

Nothing will come of it. He’s a democrat. Democrats are not subject to the same scrutiny and outrage as Republicans.

[Gritty]

It won't do any good posting pictures of Delahunt. He's Al Qaeda's friend, not their enemy!

They already know what the smarmy b@st@rd looks like and likely already contribute to his campaigns...

[AnAmericanMother]

You're wrong.

A challenge is issued only to a gentleman.

Delahunt is NO gentleman.

A dogwhip or a cane would be appropriate.

[AnAmericanMother]

Great minds think alike.

It wasn't right for Brooks to cane Sumner, because of the disparity in age.

Butler should have done it himself.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

I guess the Levin Surge last night must have worked.

[Fox_Mulder77]

You're wrong. A challenge is issued only to a gentleman.

Touche!