Flashback: Alan Colmes says he's "agnostic" about 9/11 conspiracy theories
Let’s call it a “blast from the past.”
Yesterday, David Horowitz noted with perceptible disgust that former Sean Hannity sidecar occupant Alan Colmes had waved away criticism of disgraced “Green Jobs Czar” and admitted Communist Van Jones by describing Jones as simply “a mainstream liberal.” (Insert your own joke here.)
What struck me about Horowitz’s post was his opening line: “If you didn’t believe it when I said it…”
Back in 2006, I saw and heard Alan Colmes say something on his old FOX News show that I tried to convince myself I’d misheard.
After all, wasn’t Alan Colmes just a harmless, spindly, well meaning wimp who smiled at the wrong times, and was prone to occasional passive aggressive outbursts — in other words: your (organic) garden variety “mainstream liberal” male?
However, other bloggers heard him say that “something,” too, and they wrote about it the next morning. One of those posts was memorably entitled: “Alan Colmes unfurls his nightwings.”
I’m talking about this disturbing exchange on the July 12, 2006 episode of Hannity & Colmes:
On tonight’s show, the guest was Barrett supporter Bob Bowman, member of the august Veterans for 9/11 Truth. Oh, and by the way, Bowman also happens to be . . . a Democratic candidate for congress from Florida’s 15th District!
In any case, Bowman told Sean “I’m agnostic about these conspiracy theories,” adding that Barrett’s “conspiracy theory is far more believable than yours,” and further: “I don’t know who did it and neither do you.”
Later, addressing himself to Bowman, Colmes said: “Bob, I’m Alan Colmes. I’m agnostic as well . . . As I understand it this theory while propounded in this class is not central to what he is teaching in this class. As a matter of fact, 400 pages are provided supporting the official government version and 75 pages supporting the alternative [crazy conspiracy] version that we are debating here.”
Note that like many viewers, Mark Finkelstein tried to convince himself that he had somehow “misheard” Colmes in the “crosstalk” between guests. He hadn’t. Colmes said that he too was “agnostic” — was sitting on the fence — about whether or not 9/11 was an “inside job.”
I could never bear the sight of Alan Colmes after that broadcast.
He later made other disconcerting statements, I’ve since discovered, such as this gem following the “D.C. Holocaust Museum” shooting:
There isn’t really a line drawn between the right wing ‘base’ and neo-Nazis any more. It’s a single continuum, and freepers is right there in that gray area.
Yet Alan Colmes retains his position as a fairly respectable political commentator. It’s almost enough to make you think there must be… some kind of… conspiracy…
Once you render the lie as truth, you misplace your credibility.
Out of pity, I presume, the Fox network keeps him on, but soon, he may have to learn how to sweep the floors.
The Latin word for agnostic is ignoramus.
Don’t you like Hannity’s Fox program more now that funny face is gone?
Never mind Colme’s irritating idealogy, it was his irritating mannerisms that gave me the willies. I was never agnostic about him.
Well he has a point. After all it makes perfect sense that the US government would blow up 3000 people in NYC and no one would leak.
To use an Vanism: “Asshole”
David Swindle;
“All I know is that I know nothing.†— Socrates
Great advice until God actually shows up & destroys your private Universe you have carefully constructed. Trust me you will know it when it happens. It was a total shock to me being the son of the son of heathens.
After that you are ignorant no more.
To Christians: “Good works do not make you rightious.”
Salvation is free remember, you earned nothing.
God did it all including taking your, with the Worlds deserved punishment on himself.
Hannity is coming into his own prime. I like him a lot better without the nut.
as you said Kathy if you really believed your Government killed its own civilians than why is the US not in a civil war. Because that would be an unforgivable breach of the social contract, that we allow them to govern. Indeed they become outlaw.
Hey Kathy your readers may help you out with hits, but its the product that brings us back. Yours is grade A honest.
JMO
There are only two possibilities to explain Alan Colmes in his “sidecar” role: either he was committed to taking the contrarian view to anything espoused by Hannity or a right-leaning guest, completely without scruple no matter how a base a sentiment, whether he actually believed it or not; or he really believed all the contrarian leftist BS he uttered every night of the week. I’m not sure I ever heard him claim agnosticism about 9/11, but long before he left the show I had taken to hitting the mute button every time he opened his mouth — I find Hannity’s shrill, machine-gun delivery hard enough to take even when he’s making sense. Colmes was just insufferable. Sometimes his counterpoint positions were so desperately perverse I couldn’t imagine he really believed any of it, but in the end he has proved himself a genuine fool. Listening to his portion of the “debate” was like hearing echoes of the 10th-grade junior Marxists I remember from high school, slavering at their petty semantic triumphs. Good, good, good riddance.
David Horowitz and myself both consider ourselves agnostics, at least when it comes to the subject of God.
And sometimes the smartest thing one can understand and admit is that we are ignorant. “All I know is that I know nothing.” — Socrates
David;
Before you continue to think of yourself as an agnostic, may I suggest that you watch the following presentation on TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
Possibly a failed attempt by the producers to emulate Abbott & Costello that didn’t go over to well. These pundit have more credibility presenting their arguments calmly rather than shrilly.
That works best in domestic disputes,
Politicians ought to be reminded of that premise, also.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35212
I was an intensely radical evangelical Christian for five years. Sorry, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. (Many t-shirts actually that are sitting in a box somewhere now.) I know all the arguments backwards and forwards because I used to use them myself.
http://relinquishingjunk.com/theological_discussion.htm
That said I’ll still respect your faith even if I no longer share it. One must first pass through the second stage of spiritual growth (thinking of God as a noun) before entering the third stage of rejecting God altogether, before finally getting to the fourth stage where you understand God as a Verb.
http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/stages.html
As confusing as this might sound I tend to be supportive of both stage 2 religious convictions and stage 3 atheism/science worship. Both are necessary steps in the path to a more mystical understanding of the universe. And both are far better than the stage 1 (chaotic/antisocial) types.
It is very difficult to find oneself amist the chaos, but we must respect each other’s right to think without interference.
What do you mean, John?
Separate personal ideolgy or beliefs from the argument.
The Jew;the Hindu; the Muslim; the Aetheist; etc.Who’s right? Who knows?
Well, when it’s over, we’ll know, but until then…