Rating: 
Summary: Read This Book, and be enlightened!
Review: Sean Hannity, without a doubt, provides insight into the minds of the Democratic party. If you have ever had any doubts about the course of the country, and what we need to do to protect the USA, then you need to read this book. It will truly open your eyes to the dangers we as Americans face. We must not let the Democratic Party, the Party of Appeasement, back into office. To do so would be giving victory to the terrorists.
Rating:
Summary: Hannity Thoroughly & Eloquently Explains the Brutal Truth
Review: Hannity points out the pragmatic and post-9/11 ideology of this global war on terror. He said imagine for a second that Bush decided not to go into Iraq or instead continued diplomacy via the UN (after 12 years and 17 resolutions), and Saddam Hussein continued his WMD program that EVERYONE knew he had...and then in 2006 Al Qaeida manages to kill 30,000 US citizens with biological weapons which we later find out originate from Iraq. OH how the liberals would criticize Bush then for not taking out Saddam in 2002. Now if the issue is solely about getting the French, Germans, and Russians to join (which of course would have been better) is because they chose not to for political reasons. Oil for Food.And although Saddam didn't kill 7+ million people like Hitler, he did murder hundreds of thousands of his own people - many with WMD - and still would be today had we not stepped in. And I thought the Democrats were the "compassionate" party? Do you really think the Iraqis want tyranny over democracy? They want to be free like us...which we all too often take for granted. Right now the majority in Iraq is scared of the extremists in the rebellion that we are successfully quelling. And remember, democracy can't be accomplished over night. We occupied Germany for something like 7 years after the fall of the Nazis. Japan's also doing pretty well these days...despite our wrath after Pearl Harbor. If you still think Bush "mislead" or "betrayed" us or "rushed to war" in Iraq, Hannity asks if Saddam didn't have WMD then why did he act in defiance? He says the more intellectually honest question is "where are they?" Many Democrats are still in this Pre-9/11 mindset. However I think the majority of people understand why our new PROactive approach to terrorism is the only way to ensure long-term peace and prosperity in not only this country but the whole world. If there's one thing we learned from 9-11 it's that the same old "wait and see" or "hope for the best" policies are not only naive but also dangerous. We don't have the luxury to wait until a threat is "imminent" which is why preemptive force was used on a "gathering" threat.
Rating:
Summary: Book is Prophetic about Current Events
Review: Sean Hannity's book "Deliver Us from Evil" is well written and interesting. He uses many examples from history to show us why appeasing despots leads only to more war and a greater loss of life in the long run. The real value of the book, however, is how clearly it demonstrates the Machiavellian mindset of the modern Democratic Party. Using examples like the leaked Democrat memo of November 2003, wherein Democrat members of the United States Select Committee on Intelligence plotted to misuse intelligence for partisan purposes, Sean shows how Democrats care more about their party than they do their country. Indeed, the Machiavellian Democrats would sell out the war on terror if it meant recapturing the White House. As Sean shows, modern Dems have no ethic other than their will to power. Sean states in the book that the Democrats planned many public circuses in which Administration officials would be implicated in wrong doing and publicly grilled in Kangaroo Courts, and that the Dems planned to demand the resignation of a high Administration official on whatever pretext they could find, purely to embarrass and weaken Bush in an election year. The highly partisan 9/11 Commission proved him right. Just this past week, another of Sean's predictions came true when Democrat pundits all over the country demanded the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, in spite of the damage this would do to our war effort. The Democrat attack machine is higly scripted and utterly predictable. Democrats are Democrats first and Americans second. That's why they are no longer in power. Let's keep it that way.
Rating: 
Summary: Read and you'll find the "Truth"!
Review: All I have to say is read it first, and then come to your own conclusion about the book. For me this book has opened my eyes and mind how I view the world! As a Democrat who came to see this book as another right wing book out there has really got my opinion on this book totally wrong. I may disagree with him on Fox News on some of his issues, but I have to say that I don't disagree with his book. I couldn't give this book a 5 star cause I disagree with him on some issues, but I give him 4 stars for opening my eyes and mind on how I see the world now. Terrorism must be defeated at all cost in order for society to live and prosper!
Rating: 
Summary: Marketing Genius
Review: I would like to compliment Hannity for his business acumen. I think he does a great job as a media salesman especially to those who are looking for simplistic leadership. And this book continues his product line in great form. However, this book is so slanted in view and opportunistic in the use of partial truths that is borders on propaganda. This book gets an A for segmented marketing strategy but presents overly simplified logic with a strong spin (to feed his audience). This guy is making "big coin" by selling his politics to a targeted audience - conflict of interest? - find a more unbiased source of info if you are looking to edify yourself.
Rating:
Summary: DELIVER US FROM ARROGANT, HYPOCRITICAL SMEAR TACTICS
Review: Hannity claims that MOST liberals aren't evil, but rather misguided people who make Americans more vulnerable to terrorism and sow moral confusion in our children. His solution? Not to have a productive dialogue with them but to DEFEAT them. That's right, Sean, you're innocent of any malicious intent. And so would I be if I titled my book: Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Chickenhawks, Racists and Conservatives. (NOT!) No, actually, I'd be resorting to the old smear by association, a technique perfected by Lee Atwater and his acolytes among the GOP right wing. I refuse to do that, because I'm proud to live in a nation of laws and reason; like the founding fathers, I dread the consequences to our democracy if we give in to ugly passions like hatred and spite. Limbaugh might call Daschle "Hanoi Tom", Rep. Tom Davis might accuse Daschle of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". But when GOP lawmakers publicly opposed the war in Bosnia even as our troops were over there fighting, we liberals didn't call the war critics traitors. I'm proud of that. That's as it should be in this great republic of ours. Now why doesn't Hannity want a debate? Easy. Because then he might get called on his cherry-picked "facts", his distortions, outright lies and ludicrous lapses in critical thinking. Too bad. Critical thinking is what has made America the greatest of nations. We like to roll up our sleeves and solve problems. It's why we lead in science and technology, medicine, entrepreneurship, academia, etc. It's what Americans need to practice more of in politics if we're to break the current gridlock. No, I don't believe in retaliating against Hannity-supporters by smearing conservatives as evil. As I've suggested that would cause hate-filled divisions in America, preclude the possibility of cooperating, finding common ground or learning something of value from conservatives. It would also mean that I couldn't make distinctions between kinds of wrongdoing... I'd just take a big sledgehammer to anything I found morally repugnant. For example, I'd be compelled to call Pat Robertson evil for working with depraved Liberian tyrant Samuel Doe and other African despots in an effort to make a killing in the gold and diamond mines. And if Robertson is evil, and Doe is evil, how'd I even begin to distinguish between them? Osama Bin Laden sure doesn't know how. He thinks we Americans are evil; every last one of us. He can't distinguish between a serial killer and a little girl sitting with her parents in row F on a United Airlines flight. Right-wing zealot Timothy McVeigh didn't know how, either. Once he called something evil, he didn't have to examine the consequences of his actions anymore. Now there's a big difference between smearing people and fighting evil. Hannity misses this distinction. He says liberals just aren't interested in fighting evil. Tell that to John Kerry, Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey, and Daniel Inouye. Tell that to the families of liberals who went down South to help in the civil rights movement and got themselves murdered or savagely beaten. And what about all those Republicans in WWII who didn't want to fight fascism? What about chickenhawks like Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Jeb, Neil and Marvin Bush, and "no-show" Bush? I don't say they're evil, but they sure are towering hypocrites. When Bush mocked born-again Christian, death-row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, ("Pleeez, don't kiiiilll me"), I don't call that evil. I call it revoltingly inhumane. When Bush -- asked in 1988 what he and his father talked about while they were alone -- answered, "Pu**y", that wasn't evil.It was vulgar and adolescent. When Michael Savage says of Arab Muslims: "I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings", I don't call that evil either (although it is). I call it pathological, vicious, bigotry: the precursor to genocide. When Limbaugh criticizes Americans for getting upset over Abu Ghraib, and punishing the soldiers responsible just "because they had a good time", that's not evil. Just depraved. When Cheney, the neocons, and Bush deliberately lied to Americans to get us into war with Iraq, resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians, that's not evil... though its pretty darn close. No, I call it a case of contemptible arrogance mixed with avarice. When Bush permits old-growth logging and calls it the Healthy Forests Initiative, or allows big polluters to spew more mercury into the air and calls his plan "Clear Skies", it's not evil. It's a corruption, a betrayal, of the American people. When Bush and the Republicans in Congress do their level-best to bankrupt government by racking up huge deficits, that's not evil. It's a deliberate, long-term plan to shift the tax burden on to the middle class and, at the same time, to castrate their health care, social security and other services, because after all, they're just losers anyway if they need that stuff. When Cheney refuses to name those who attended his Energy Task Force meeting, that's not evil. It's just an outrageous, elitist violation of the public's right to know. When Oliver North lied before Congress, accepted illegal payments and destroyed evidence, that wasn't evil. It was a crime that showed contempt for democracy. So let me be clear: I welcome a dialogue with conservatives who're willing to enter into one. But I know a nasty smear when I see it, and that's Hannity's stock-in-trade. Fair and balanced, my keister! Want to read outstanding books by erstwhile Republicans? Try "Worse than Watergate" by John Dean and two by Kevin Phillips: "Wealth and Democracy" & "American Dynasty."
Rating:
Summary: Great book, full of the truth leftists cannot stand to read
Review: Its funny reading the leftists reviews of this tome. They rant and rave about this lie and that lie. They are unnerved by someone they really want to believe is lying to them, or they want you to think is lying to you. Sean does an excellent job laying out his thoughts in this book and leaves no doubt about where the left stands in this country. They are livid, as you can see from their supposed reviews of this book. They never seemed to let lies bother them when they were leaving the lips of Bill Clinton, but now all of a sudden, they are concerned with lies. Its pretty halarious. Read the book, its great information and lays out exactly what you see the liberal "reviewers" doing here on Amazon. This is what they do. This is who they are. Good job Sean. Great book.
Rating:
Summary: Read this book and decide for yourself....
Review: Instead of listening to the very biased liberal views from readers who obviously have an agenda, read the book yourself. I think you will find the book makes some very legitimate points. Even the review from Publisher's Weekly appeared to be biased by calling people who enjoyed this book "neocons". My point is read the book with an open mind...then decide what you believe. Too many people are trying to influence what we think, read and believe. I believe we should make our own decisions by being informed with books from all points of view.
Rating: 
Summary: No need to explain
Review: With all the review, it's no need for me to say what the book is about, plus if you have watched Hannity and Colmes or listened to the author's radio show, you already know his views. I just wonder, if you know from the beginning what his views are, why would you even bother to read the book, if you don't like his opinion on his television show and radio show, chances are you are not going to like the book, but if you agree with his views i am sure that you will enjoy the book.
Rating:
Summary: Demolishing A Very Poor Author...
Review: This book earned a one star rating for the following reasons: 1. Flawed Appeasement Argument.
Hannity relies on a laughably outdated and inaccurate history concerning Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement policy" torward Hiter prior to WWII. He uses this as an analogy to set up his straw man arguments against his opposition. Although Chamberlain was criticized for appeasing Hitler immediately after the war by his detractors, we now know Chamberlain had no choice. Britain was not militarily ready to confront Hitler during Chamberlain's tenure as Prime Minister, as Britain was still engaged in the post-WWI rebuilding process. Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler as a stall tactic, while he worked feverishly to re-arm Britain to prepare for the inevitable confrontation. The modern, correct, and widely held account of Chamberlain's WWII appeasement policy borders on common knowledge. It is not a fringe view.
-> This fact largely negates the entire premise of his book, and renders it laughable. If you're up on WWII history, this argument alone makes Hannity look like a fool. Chamberlain's appeasement policy was simply the wrong analogy to cite in making his case. Frankly, he's insulting your intelligence, and his argument is predicated on the presumed ignorance of history of his audience.<- 2. Outright Lies
Nothing serves to discredit an author more than outright lies. Hannity does it twice. He twists the NYT piece he cites on page 22 by clearly taking quotes out of context to illustrate how the NYT held an anti-american view regarding our military action against the Taliban in Afganistan after 911. Simply, this NYT op ed says precisely the opposite of what Hannity leads you to believe. The second, well documented, outright lie concerns his blatantly out of context citation of a speech by Senator Dick Durban. This one's so bad it's worthy of Ann Coulter. 3. Cherry Picking
Of course, when one sets out to make the case that the GOP is always correct, and the Dems are always wrong - or vise versa, you're on shakey ground to begin with. Your only option in making such a case is to cherry pick those events which support your case, and completely ignore any fact that is contrary to your argument (This is the tactic employed by those UFO books...). Hannity ignores the Iran-Contra Scandal, Reagan's support of the Mujadeem, which morphed into the Taliban, Bush I's failure to get Hussein after Gulph I, Truman's decision to pull out of Korea, Nixon's decision to end Vietnam, Bush II's appeasement of the Saudi's to name just a few examples of republican appeasement, and failure to have the necessary "moral clarity" to confront and defeat evil, and see it through. One could just as easily cherry pick the examples I've cited and turn Hannity's argument around and point it at Republican leadership. 4. Straw Man
Hannity basically makes liberal "Straw Men" for a living. This is a poor form of argumentation whereby you intentionally frame the opposition's position in a very weak way (hence, "straw man") to be easily demolished. It's the bread-n-butter of virtually all right-wing AM radio zealots. DUFE is one big "Straw Man" case against democrats in book form. It amazes me anyone buys it - but the sales figures prove they do. 5. Trite
"Evil exists and it means to harm us." LOL! Really, Sean? Thanks for pointing this out. So, we're the Power Puff Girls and they're Mojo Jo Jo? Your argument sounds like it came from the Mayor of Townsville. Ya think it's really that simple? That's all it boils down to? What an estute observation. Gimme a break. There is a case to be made in favor of neoconservativism and preemptive strikes against terrorists in the wake of 911. In fact, I'm in favor of this approach. But Hannity is either more concerned about book sales or simply doesn't have the wherewithal to pull it off. DUFE for reasons 1 through 5 is just bad. Laughable in fact to anyone who looks at it objectively. It IS entertaining, however, in a campy, unintentionally funny kinda way - like one of those movies on MST 3000. One look at the cover - Hannity's mug plastered in front of the statue of liberty, and you know what you're in for from the get-go.
| 
