Mr. Hannity: "Liberals," including US Catholic bishops, reproachfully stirred up millions of people to join nuclear freeze demonstrations in the early 1980s. (p. 76)

My response: Some brief background on this issue might help clarify the discussion. Early in the Cold War, American administrations pursued a strategic, offensive-defense security doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was for the US to maintain "strategic parity" with the Soviet Union --that is, a balance among number, power, sophistication and readiness of atomic bombs such that neither country would dare to start a nuclear war against the other thanks to fear of equally destructive retaliation by the adversary. Except for a temporary challenge during President John F. Kennedy's administration, which began courageously downsizing America's nuclear arsenal, the MAD doctrine more or less continued to guide American nuclear policy through containment to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) of the 1970s, which aimed to mutually reduce US and Soviet nuclear forces. The acronym of MAD was quite appropriate; this delicate policy was truly insane, as it could not be continued for long without leading eventually to a global nuclear disaster.

Mr. Hannity: "Monarchism, National Socialism, fascism, communism--all these forms of authoritarianism are illegitimate and inherently unjust." (pp. 10-11)

My response: I agree that National Socialism (Nazism) and communism are not legitimate forms of government because of their innate injustice. In different ways, both ideologies degrade the humanity of a people--Nazism through the elevation of society to godlike status, communism through the reduction of persons to mere cogs in the machinery of state. By eliminating socially "inferior" citizens, including Jews, Catholics, the mentally ill, and the handicapped, the racist and eugenicist Nazis worked to create a "master race" hoping to restore Germany's past glory. Communism is a collectivist system of government in which the state controls and regulates all the details of the ordinary lives of its citizens. While attempting to ensure the material security of all the citizens, it strips the individual person of his freedom--to worship God as he chooses, to purchase goods or property, to raise a family without interference, to determine his job, hours, or wage, to freely assemble with other citizens, to obtain a fair trial, or to criticize government policy.

Mr. Hannity: "There is no appeasing this enemy." (p. 6)

My response: By its very nature, terrorism is a drastic form of negotiation. It is defined as the threat or use of wanton violence to frighten governments in order to achieve a political goal. Just as a baby kicks and screams in an attempt to force his parents to give him what he wants, terrorists use violence hoping to leverage the US into complying with their demands. However, there are two noteworthy differences between the baby and the grownup terrorist. One is that the terrorists' ultimate objectives are usually just and legitimate. Second, "Islamic" terrorists are prepared to go to great lengths for their cause, even to die for it--precisely because it is just. To summarize, terrorists attempt to achieve a good end through bad means.

Mr. Hannity: "You cannot negotiate with evil...sweet-talk...compromise...give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you." (p. 6)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with this principle. In the great cosmic struggle between good and evil in which we are all participants, vigilance and unwavering determination are crucial for those fighting evil. Wishy-washiness in confronting evil allows the devil to take a person over. But Mr. Hannity's book fails to take into account the difference between the unchanging moral law and the application of that law to the political sphere.

Mr. Hannity: "The totalitarian regimes that support them [terrorists] are more difficult to trace, using every devious means available to hide their role in funding and training the terrorists." (p. 5)

Mr. Hannity: "The terrorists themselves, of course, carry on their war against America in covert fashion-but they, at least, are the enemy we know." (p. 5)

My response: One of the outstanding characteristics distinguishing the "War on Terrorism" from true wars such as World War II is the vast difference in our knowledge of the "enemy". In the war against Germany and Japan, we knew exactly who our enemies were, the locations of their armies and bases, and their approximate number. But the "War on Terrorism" is much hazier, due to the fundamental reason that it is not a real war at all.

Mr. Hannity: "The primary evil we face today is terrorism." (p. 3)

My response: With the traumatic images of September 11 burned into our consciousness, it can be tempting to look on international "Islamic" terrorism as the greatest evil inflicted by human beings upon our civilization. However, this view is erroneous, pathetically myopic, unconsciously self-pitying, encourages unlawful revenge, and is hypocritical.

Mr. Hannity: We cannot excuse terrorists as "...men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western society". (p. 3)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree that there is no excuse for deliberate evil. If a person commits a bad act with full knowledge of what he is doing and full consent of the will, he is guilty of mortal sin, as the Catholic Church teaches and as I presume Hannity believes. Ultimately, that person can only blame himself for committing the act.

Mr. Hannity: The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were "...unmistakable act[s] of war and crime[s] against humanity." (p. 1)

My response: Yes, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were terrible crimes against humanity which killed thousands of innocent people. They were unequivocally condemned as such by all the nations of the world.

*Foreword*

As a politically independent member of Political Cortex for five months now, I would like to begin publishing a new series of controversial essays which I originally drafted more than two years ago. Since late 2005 I have submitted this twenty-five part series to dozens upon dozens of political magazines and websites--neoconservative, conservative, independent, liberal, Catholic, secular and every outlook in between--both paying and not-for-profit. I have received hardly a single response, and no replies whatsoever indicating any interest. So finally, to dispel my growing impatience, I have decided to share this series with Internet readers by publishing it myself on a weekly basis.  

"Answers to Sean Hannity" is a formal debate with the popular neoconservative radio figure based on excerpts from his bestselling 2004 book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism. I hope you all enjoy it, and I look forward to receiving any questions or comments you may have.

I along with many others recently received an e-mail from Robert Greenwald stressing an important point - the manner in which Fox News has become a blatant neoconservative spear launcher in the war realm.

Greenwald knows Fox well, having produced an excellent documentary Outfoxed that doubtlessly still provokes curses in the station's boardroom.  Greenwald issued a call to concerned Americans to energize and vigorously fight Fox in its attempt to circulate war propaganda to launch another war in the Middle East, this time in Iran.

An important link needs to be recognized stressing that Fox News engaged in vigorous saber rattling propaganda against Iraq.  In addition to numerous efforts to enrage Americans that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown, Fox commentators warned unrelentingly that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein intended to unleash against America.

The Fox war drumbeaters were at optimum level in lavishly praising Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations, in which badly flawed information was deceitfully presented as fact.  Fox was so impressed by Powell's presentation, one that many informed Middle East analysts immediately began questioning and refuting, was classified as "a virtuoso performance."

When Ann Coulter appeared on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" and unleashed more of her diseased venom against John Edwards, statements so scurrilous, dishonest and thoroughly pathetic that they need not be repeated here, it was easy to see a familiar pattern.

Matthews is on MSNBC, the same network that brought Phil Donahue's show to a quick halt for allegedly "bad ratings" that were better than Matthews's.  The difference was that while Matthews fawns over figures such as Coulter, Dick Cheney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donahue had the true audacity to present speakers with differing viewpoints to the Cheney-Bush full speed ahead Iraq invasion.

One of the most candidly memorable interviews in an ever nose-diving mainstream media occurred when Donahue interviewed former Desert Storm commander General Norman Schwarzkopf, who explained that a decision was made not to invade Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War for reasons that have been confirmed in tragic detail.

Schwarzkopf asserted that with the major religious and ideological split dividing Iraq consisting of Shiites and Sunnis that if America invaded turmoil would result in a nation that would be soon enveloped in bloody civil war.  Has anyone seen any recent repeats of this interview?

Just think of what we read in high school civics books.  We were told that good citizenship was inextricably tied to voting.  This was our contribution toward making our voices heard.

When Dwight D. Eisenhower, the forgotten Republican president, was seeking reelection in 1956 he delivered a brief announcement to the nation shortly before Election Day urging all Americans to exercise their right to vote.  He urged every eligible American citizen to vote, even if that meant voting against him.

We have come a long way.  Sean Hannity, who drips with syrupy self-proclamations on patriotism, has a different view.  Voters should only turn out if they favor the candidates he and his "fair and balanced" Fox News colleagues such as Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto sanction, meaning Republicans slavishly supporting the Cheney-Bush agenda.

Recently Hannity encouraged Democratic voters to "stay home on Election Day," adding that, "your vote doesn't matter anyway."  His rationale was that Democrats should stay away from the polls "for the sake of the nation" since their votes "won't change who occupies the White House" and Democratic "candidates have absolutely no idea how to win the war on terrorism."

Joseph Lieberman's declaration in the wake of his Connecticut Democratic Party Primary defeat on Tuesday is reminiscent of an event linking President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of the Treasury John Connally in 1972.  The cases are particularly intriguing in view of the ideological strategy ploys invoked in each case.

It was later learned that Nixon, who had been given the nickname "Tricky Dick" for a reason, was disenchanted with Vice President Spiro Agnew, his reelection running mate in 1972 in his race against Democratic presidential nominee Senator George McGovern of South Dakota.  

Nixon, who had handpicked Agnew four years earlier for his 1968 race against Vice President Hubert Humphrey, had privately lamented that "the guy doesn't have it" and jokingly referred to the man residing one heartbeat from the presidency as his "insurance policy against assassination."

In 1971 Nixon, one year removed from a pivotal election, tapped former Texas Governor John Connally, a protégé of Lyndon B. Johnson and leader of the state Democratic Party's conservative wing, to become his Secretary of the Treasury as America was mired in a recession.  

As Senator Joseph Lieberman seeks to secure the Democratic Party's nomination in Connecticut a question must be asked, one that becomes more increasingly relevant with each passing day.  With Lieberman expressing concern that so many members of his party on the important issue of values, he has made a prominent new ally.  

This new alliance not only begs an important question, it presages a more involved discussion of the direction where Senator Lieberman is taking America.  It lies at the heart of where the Democratic Party stands and the ideological ground it should encompass in the future.  

It must also be asked whether Lieberman and others like him are part of a unilateral disarmament movement to enable the Cheney-Bush style of radical Republicanism to reign unchallenged.

As has been noted, Lieberman has made a recent ally of Fox News right wing Republican commentator Sean Hannity.  On one of his recent appearances Lieberman expressed concern that so many in his party do not understand traditional American values.  The Fox commentator was only too happy to agree.