Alan Colmes. This is a particularly sad case of many elements converging at one locus. Unfortunately for Alan, this crash site is on the most widely viewed cable news network, Fox, so many, many people witness his ignominy. Fortunately (?) for Alan, he is completely unaware of this fact.

Night after night Alan embarrasses himself, sometimes happily, sometimes frantically, sometimes desperately but never with any sense he knows what he's doing. It's as if some demon lifeforce enters his mind as the red light goes on atop the camera in front of him and he's possessed for the next 60 minutes. Alan struggles to defend the indefensible left viewpoint against some of the sharpest minds of our time and Alan is not in their company. What can he do but switch topics and repeat himself, or ask inane, inappropriate questions?

A couple nights ago, he embarrassed himself with Newt Gingrich and it was particularly painful to witness. Here's an exchange from FNC's Hannity & Colmes with Bibi Netanyahu (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205547,00.html)

<snip>

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Much has been made about U.N. Resolution 1559. There is some controversy it seems about U.N. Resolution 242, which of course calls for Israel to remove itself from territories acquired in the 1967 war. Is it your view that that has been fulfilled, or is there still some issue about whether or not that has been adhered to?

NETANYAHU: Well, it calls for Israel to remove itself from territories — or not the territories — to secure and recognize boundaries. We've done — the question is, what is a secure boundary? The 1967 lines were obviously insecure, because we were attacked from them time and again.

But even so, we moved to the '67 lines, both in Lebanon and in Gaza, and we were attacked. And we certainly don't have any recognition, any peace that is quid pro quo of peace. So the conditions of Resolution 242 are not met.

They're not just an Israeli withdrawal. First of all, they're not withdrawal from the territories. They're withdrawal from territories in exchange for security and recognition. We got neither security or recognition. We've got insecurity, terror campaigns, and war.

COLMES: I know there's been some — I know the word "the" is not in there, but there are those who interpret it as meaning "the territories," even though the word "the" is not in there.

Syria is now saying it is ready for talks with the United States, for example, to broker a cease-fire. Why wouldn't that be a great opportunity to try to bring peace?

NETANYAHU: Syria says that from one side of its mouth and on the other side of its mouth — or, if you will, from its hidden hand — it has been supplying in the course of the recent outbreak, it has been supplying Hezbollah with rockets. So Syria has to decide which side it wants to play.

<snip>

Whatever is Alan trying to say? He wastes precious airtime on the word “the”. Then he naively suggests that since Syria is asking for talks with the US (buying time, it's called hudna, this shouldn't be taken seriously by any rational person) it's a great opportunity to bring peace.

Where? On Pluto? What planet is he on? What sandbox is he playing in because usually only 4 year olds are this trusting. Who believes Syria actually wants peace? Alan!

For the most part, the guests tolerate him well but every so often you see a flash of wonderment, nay, disbelief cross their faces as Alan embarrasses himself yet again.  The problem is that the message he conveys to the audience is confusing in a time of war.  He does not add to our understanding of the gravity of the situation.  When all of our lives hang in the balance, those with national or international platforms have a responsibility to educate themselves to the true nature of our enemy.  Alan, seemingly quite cavalierly, has not.  Why not?  Because he has no awareness of all that he doesn't know.  As I said, it's sad. He's more to be pitied than censured.

Wait. No. Censuring works for me.