Save Big On Open-Box & Pre-owned: Buy "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despoti...” from Amazon Warehouse Deals and save 81% off the $26.95 list price. Product is eligible for Amazon's 30-day returns policy and Prime or FREE Shipping. See all Open-Box & Pre-owned offers from Amazon Warehouse Deals.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism Hardcover – February 17, 2004
|New from||Used from|
Customers who bought this item also bought
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Special offers and product promotions
From Publishers Weekly
Conservative Fox Television news host and bestselling author Hannity sees behind the ills of the world one cause: evil. And so Hannity joins the "neocon" chorus, positing that totalitarian regimes, such as Hussein's in Iraq, Hitler's Germany and the former Soviet Union, serve as breeding grounds for evil, thus justifying President Bush's policy of pre-emptive action against countries that could threaten American interests. Despite "irrefutable evidence," Hannity writes, today's liberals inexplicably doubt that "absolute evil truly exists," and instead foolishly cling to the idea that the world's problems might arise from social, psychological and cultural differences or from economic inequality. Fans of Hannityâ"Christian conservatives in particularâ"will no doubt embrace this straightforward call to arms. Many readers, however, will find Hannity's "irrefutable" evidence to be anything but, and his selective use of history and circular logic raise far more questions than it settles. Two final chapters examine what Hannity considers to be the dangerous, partisan policies espoused by the current slate of Democratic presidential candidates. For our democracy to survive, Hannity argues, we must root out terrorists and defeat evil totalitarian regimes before they can harm usâ"a theme that will no doubt play loudly this election season.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
About the Author
Sean Hannity is the host of radio's The Sean Hannity Show and TV's Hannity, and the author of the New York Times bestsellers Deliver Us from Evil and Let Freedom Ring. His radio show is heard by roughly 13.5 million loyal listeners on 500 stations nationwide.
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
I fully expected to get frustrated and annoyed at Hannity's partisan rants. But truthfully I spent more time laughing at Hannity's screwy logic, disingenuous statements and curious double standards than I did getting angry with him. It is just sad that Sean Hannity would dupe his audience in such an irresponsible fashion with this partisan propaganda.
I knew I was in for a good time when Sean Hannity started referring to liberals and Democrats as "appeasers" and the "blame America first crowd". You see, Democrats "hate America" when they criticize the incompetence, arrogance, errors of judgment and questionably legality of Republican foreign policy decisions. However, when Republicans criticize the foreign policy of Democrats, they have "moral courage" and "love America."
Sean Hannity can't have it both ways. American foreign policy is American foreign policy regardless of which party holds the office. Examining and identifying flaws in our foreign policy positions allows us to learn from and correct past mistakes so we can avoid them in the future. If criticizing American foreign policy emboldens our enemies during Republican administrations it does no less during Democrat administrations, which Hannity has no qualms with.
Hannity likes to accuse liberals and Democrats of having a history of "appeasement". Democrats aren't tough enough, Hannity claims. America shouldn't negotiate. America shouldn't "appease". America must be tough. Take the case of Jimmy Carter, Hannity's second favorite whipping boy behind Bill Clinton. Hannity criticizes Carter for getting tough with Iran in January 1979. You see, the CIA basically helped to install the Shah of Iran in a coup in 1953. The problem is the Shah wasn't a "perfect ruler" who led an "oppressive regime" (Hannity's words). According to Hannity, Carter pressured the Shah to operate a free and open government. Carter demanded that Iran try political prisoners in civilian courts instead of secret military tribunals. President Carter also "strongly urged" Iran to permit free assembly, a cornerstone of any free and democratic society.
But Hannity doesn't see it that way because, although he won't admit it, Hannity hates freedom and democracy. Hannity argues the civilian trials led to "anti-Shah propaganda" and free assembly led to an "open season for potential insurgents to meet and plot revolution". Hannity probably believes Iran also had a "liberal media". According to Hannity, Carter's tough policy and Iran's open government resulted in the overthrow of the Shah and the installation of an "anti-American authoritarian regime", the Iran-Iraq war and the deaths of millions of people. In a moment of "moral relativism", Hannity argues the Shah "was no where near as radical Islamic fundamentalists leaders generally were". Besides, the dictator was "once our strongest ally in the middle east". Is Hannity suggesting Carter should have "appeased" the brutal dictator?
In any event, when the Reagan administration rushed in a new era of toughness, you would expect things to change, right? Well, no. You see, since Carter failed to "appease" Iran, we needed a new friend in the Middle East. The Republican administration chose to "appease" Saddam Hussein. Yes, we made friends with a dictator even more brutal than the Shah of Iran. We even gave him weapons. That is, until we decided later that he was a threat, a monster, a boogeyman, an enemy and a terrorist.
Oh, but there are more examples of appeasement from the right. Even though, Carter single-handedly turned Iran into an Islamic fundamentalist state which threatened the security of the United States, a Republican administration saw fit to sell them ARMS in exchange for hostages. I know it sounds crazy, but Republicans actually DO negotiate with terrorists.
And not only that, the Reagan administration diverted funds from the sale of those arms to Iran in order to fund an illegal war in Central America without Congressional approval. And the funniest part of all is that the Republican administration sponsored a group of insurgents (terrorists?) to overthrow a democratically elected government in Nicaragua resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Hannity also conveniently omitted these little facts from his book about "evil".
So Hannity's talk of "principles" and "moral courage" ring very hollow. Sean would like us to see the world, as he says President Bush does, in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. But when it comes to acknowledging the wrongs of American foreign policy, Hannity resorts to the same "moral relativism" he accuses the left of doing. And it is terribly disingenuous for Hannity to argue Republicans are so much better than Democrats at this foreign policy stuff particularly in light of the mess created in Iraq by the current Republican administration.
Unfortunately, it would take a whole book to debunk Sean Hannity's arguments in "Deliver Us from Evil". But since he wrote this book long before March 2006, I would imagine he is already working on his revision and corrections. But I won't hold my breath waiting for Hannity to apologize for "blaming America first" in his criticisms of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
"Then again, I am a filthy rich, arrogant, racist, ignorant homophobe that can't look past the surface of any political issue." - I'm happy for you ... at least you're honest enough to say that you're ignorant.... though the rest of your writing would have told us that in any case.
"Sean need to address today's "real issues"..." - I'm sure that was supposed to be 'needS to address'....
"1) Dubya has left this country/our military in it's most vulnerable state in modern history. Sean don't talk about that." - I know more than a few military personel that would disagree with that statement ... particularly with Clinton's view of cuts in military spending as well as Kerry's voting record on military projects.....
"2) 40 million Americans don't have health care while our government drops billions overseas. Sean has health care, who cares about them poor working slobs." Sorry ... not the government's job to hand out free health care ... want free health care move to a socialist country. I earn my money and I pay for my health care ... and I'm NOT a "rich, arrogant, racist"
"3) very few self-proclaimed "conservatives" practice what they preach. If you ain't rich, you ain't a conservative, period." - Conservatism has nothing to do with wealth or income, it is a view on how that income should be handled ... I earn my money therefore I should KEEP my money and that's why I'm sick of giving it to the government.
"Bush's big "tax cuts" amount to about 6 bucks a week to me, a working slob making around 60K per year. 6 bucks! Thanks Dubya." - Wow ... you need to look at things again ... cause I don't make 60k a year and the tax cuts gave me more than $6 a week ... And I'm guess by the way that you worded that statement that you would prefer to continue to give that $6 a week to the government? Or perhaps you'd like to give even more? Kerry certainly would like you to give more ... last time I checked anyone in the 40k+ annual was 'Rich' by many of the liberal politician calculations.
"If you're a millionaire/billionaire, that 6 bucks compounds on a sliding scale..." Wow ... Imagine that ... people that pay more taxes get more money back from tax cuts ... IRS statistics show that the top income earners account for 17% of the income to all individuals in the US and those people pay over 30% of all income tax collected by the IRS ... The bottom 50% of all income earners in the US pay less than 2% of all the income tax collected ... doing the math that means that over 98% of all income tax is paid by the top 50% of wage earners with 30% of that stacked on the top % of income earners. So if we cut taxes then, yes, it is mostly going to effect the top % of income earners because ... I'll say this slowly ... they ... pay ... the ... most ... taxes. Tax cuts that affect the bottom 50% of income earners in the US aren't tax cuts they are income re-distribution plans.
I'm nobody's sheep ... I'm also nobody's meal plan ... get your hands out of my wallet and keep your government out of my life. Bring back individual freedom for ALL and bring back individual responsibility for all ... I want the right to excel and be recognized for it ... that also means that I accept the possibility that I may FAIL. No one is responsible for my actions OR my well being except ME, and to that portion of our population that can't accept that TOUGH
Most Recent Customer Reviews
FOR HIM TO COMPARE & OR INCLUDE LIBERALISM WITH EVIL, TERRORISM, & DESPOTISM IS ONE OF HANNITY'S...Read more