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.

The issue of national security belongs to the American people; it is not the property of the Bush Administration, the Republican party, Michelle Malkin, or right wing bloggers.,p> In a recent article in The Moderate Voice, centrist blogger Joe Gandelman discusses a recent report concerning an alleged, or possible, or potential plot by Al Qaeda to attack US targets (in this case U.S. shopping malls over the Christmas season).  Yes, I know, you've heard it all before.  And that is Gandelman's point: the "political contamination" of the issue and its perceived (his word, not mine) exploitation by the Bush Administration has actually undermined public vigilance. Gandelman:  "A jaded public could mean a serious warning could be shrugged off when and if it comes."  Right: and according to me, that's exactly what will happen unless Democrats reclaim the issue from the Right.

*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.

Most leaders and the press view violence against women and children as just "a women's issue" or "a children's issue" - in their minds, a secondary issue. But it's not only that millions of women and children are victims of violence in their homes every year; the fact is that intimate violence provides a basic model for using force to impose one's will on others.

When children either experience or observe violence against their mothers in their homes, they learn that it's ok, even "moral," to use violence to impose one's will on others. This is why throughout history, the most violently despotic and warlike societies have been those where violence, or the threat of violence, is used to maintain domination of parent over child and man over woman.

As reported on Political Cortex last October, two news articles, including one in Prensa Latina, claimed that the Bush family had purchased a sizeable piece of land in Paraguay.  Although it seemed a bit farfetched, the rumor spread like wildfire across the blogosphere.  Mainstream news media, on the other hand, ignored the story and neither substantiated nor disproved the allegation. A search of the White House website turned up no evidence of an official response.

In fact, a response was issued, through the State Department, on an obscure web page far below the public radar.  This is not the reaction one would expect from public relations experts hoping to squelch a rampant rumor, and it's a highly unusual response for an administration known for aggressive denials of unflattering allegations.  Thus, the administration's limp response, like the rumor itself, is intriguing.

In light of the recent media circus surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein, I think America needs the following reminder. Please spread this message as far and wide as you can.

James Madison wrote, "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both."  The increased suppression of scientific dissent in America in recent years proves the accuracy of Madison's observation.

In a recent diary, I described the lack of adequate and accurate public information on radiation hazards. Unfortunately, the nuclear-proliferation-for-profit crowd has a long history of trying to suppress public dialogue about nuclear safety rather than support their own positions with facts presented openly. Scientists who offer contrary facts and opinions soon find that they have themselves become "radioactive," as one whistleblower described it to me.

It's sometimes hard to tell if the British government's handling of a radiation poisoning case is inept or just poorly reported, but it certainly could be improved. The difficulty of the UK's response to a  radiological attack on an individual demonstrates, on a much smaller scale, the kind of challenge Americans would face if terrorists used radioactive substances to inflict mass casualties in the United States.

By the time British government authorities publicly identified polonium-210 as the likely cause of Alexander Litvinenko's death, thousands of people had been exposed to cross-contamination as they passed through each of the places visited by the former Russian spy, and possibly his assassin, before he fell ill on November 1. It is unclear if doctors failed to quickly diagnose the cause, or if officials intentionally withheld the diagnosis for investigative purposes.

So far, though, investigators report finding traces of radiation at a dozen locations, among them Litvinenko's home, the Park Lane Hotel, the Millenium Hotel, a sushi restaurant, offices of fellow Russian Boris Berezovsky, and two currently grounded aircraft. British authorities say that only low levels of contamination have been discovered and the threat to public health is "minimal." But,  monitoring and sampling can only determine how much contamination remains. How much was there originally may never be known.

GET OUT OF IRAQ.

GET OUT OF CONGRESS.

This is the message, spoken loud and clear, by Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, two retired senior Army generals, both of whom served in Iraq and both of whom previously voted Republican. Both are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress while bitterly condemning Bush's failures.

This comes close on the heels of a leading organization of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), giving most Congressional Republicans worse ratings on their handling of war, terrorism and veterans' issues than Congressional Democrats. (Above linked article only looks at the New York State delegation).

And, of course, we also have an entire slate of Iraq and Afghanistan war vets running for Congress, almost ALL of them Democrats who bitterly condemn Bush's handling of the war, terrorism and veterans' issues. Some 21 Fighting Dem candidates, running in some 16 states, are doing their best to defeat Bush's failed policies.

I'm no diplomat (although I honestly think I could do a better job of it than the asses we have now) but to me, the only effective way to fight much of the terrorism we see in this world is to work to eradicate poverty in this world without the injection of political pretense.

What is an act of terror and how does it differ from other terrible violence? A letter to Samina, during this season of reflection and repentence.

Painfully aware are we that President Bill Clinton serves as the blame-game catch-all from the vast swath of 'personal responsibility' Republicans. And on no issue is that more accurately the case than the fight against terrorism.

So it was particularly amusing that Vice President Cheney would promote a line of thought that would vindicate the entire Clinton Administration from any and all accusations put forth by the current Neoclown cabal regarding said fight.

Cheney said:

"'sound policy decisions' by the Bush administration were the reason the United States had not been attacked by terrorists" since 2001. Cheney's "claim of credit for the absence of attacks, a frequent theme in his recent speeches, contrasts sharply with criticism by Democrats and others who charge the administration has left the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism by focusing on the war in Iraq."

(Let's pretend that his logic is not flawed and proceed...)

Using 'Cheney logic', Republicans should be lavishing Bill Clinton with praise since 'sound policy decisions' by the Clinton administration were clearly the reason the United States had not been attacked by terrorists since 1993 on through the rest of his two-terms in office - a LONGER period free of international terrorist attacks on US soil than that currently overseen by Bush.

So, on behalf of Bill Clinton, I thank you for defending the last duly elected leader of the free world from your lesser minions.

Perhaps there is some sense in that big fat head of yours.