Rating: 
Summary: Exposes the Danger of Liberal Appeasement
Review: Before I begin I want to say that I love these morons who bring up tax cuts for the rich in their reviews. It is obvious they have not read the book. There is almost no mention of taxes in the book. It is essentially a book exposing the defense policies of the left.I received my copy on a Friday evening and finished it by Sunday evening. I could not put it down. It is one of the most clear cut cases I have heard for keeping liberals out of power. Sean gives clear examples of how appeasement has failed in the past explains how this flawed mindset is the foundation upon which the Democratic party bases it's foreign policy. I agree with Sean. The next 10-20 years will be critical for the security of this country. We're not talking about differing opinions about the economy, prescription drugs, Social Security, etc., but rather the very existence of this great nation. As a 30 year old father of 2 little ones I am very worried about the future of this country if those of the liberal persuasion were to be elected. Buy the book, Read it, and pass it to a friend to read. We must get the word out! I would give it 10 stars if possible.
Rating:
Summary: Liberals are scary!
Review: Excellent book; don't listen to the Flamin' Libs who are just trying to get folks from purchasing. Apparently it hasn't worked though, still the #1 Bestseller this week hee hee!
Rating: 
Summary: I'm right! You're wrong!
Review: Score points for Sean Hannity, just a hard-working guy who has succeeded in becoming a top TV guy conservative. Just out of nowhere, plucked from the ripe fields of talk radio and onto your TV every night. He even writes books. Hannity is perfect for television, where there is a focus on eliminating anything resembling serious thought or even debate. His solution is simple: forget the context, forget the details--boil it down to terms a child can understand. Then skew them to back up your favorite party. This can be accomplished by carefully selecting only the facts that make you look good, occassionally admitting you're human, demonizing all enemies, and shouting over everyone else. While one book by Sean Hannity (or his ghost writer) won't ruin the country, a steady diet of child-like views of the world from 'pundits' will succeed in indoctrinating the people and tricking people into thinking they have a voice in the media. A book like this tells you what it is off the bat, and it still sells. You have a nice, shiny cover of a TV flim-flam man striking his best serious look in front of the Statue of Liberty capped off with a Biblical title. Sean Hannity is a good doll in Rubert Murdoch's Fox collection.
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: For seekers of the truth only: others need not bother
Review: Mr. Hannity does a superb job of building the case why it is so critical that terrorism be defeated. It is an enemy unlike any we have faced before, but then so was communism earlier in the 20th century. He also exposes terrorism's unwitting allies, the decent hearted liberals, who are just blind enough to be lead to a disastrous path. This would be OK except these folks are not content to go alone. They insist that everyone else take the same road. Sean is brilliant in exposing this, being hard on the ideas and records of liberals without demeaning the persons espousing this ideas.
The unfortunate part of this is that most who read this are already on the right side. Most on the wrong (left) side will be unswayed. It is a book by a great american.
Rating:
Summary: I Re-iterate, Can Hannitoids Handle the Truth?
Review: Hannity hangs his entire, and entirely lame, "git them before they git us" argument largely on the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberain. According to Hannity, Chamberlain did not have the "moral clarity" to confront Hitler, and instead "appeased" him, which resulted in WWII, and millions of deaths and atrocities. Had Chamberlain had the "moral clarity" to defeat Hitler, WWII would have been avoided, in the (neocon ,chickenhawk, dream-) world according to Hannity. To make his case, Hannity conveniently omits or distorts the facts regarding Chamberlain and his appeasement policy. Below, I've selected passages from various encyclopedias and the BBC to illutrate that these views are widely held - not some obscure view found in a scholarly dissertation, and to show just how blatant Hannity's sins of omission are: Wikipedia:
However, this view (my note: view described is similar to Hannity's) has been criticised as being inconsistent with the historical facts. Under Chamberlain, the United Kingdom undertook a massive expansion of its military and war industry and instituted a peacetime draft. According to some historians, Chamberlain was under no illusions about the aims and goals of Nazi Germany, but was informed by his military advisers that Britain was in no condition to fight Germany over Czechslovakia. Seen from this vantage point, Chamberlain's actions in Munich were less a cowardly and ignorant cave-in, but rather a calculated and necessary tactic to buy time so that Britain could rearm against the Nazi menace. The rearmament program accelerated after Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia, and by the time Hitler's armies attacked Poland, Britain was well on its way to building its own war machine to confront Nazi Germany' Grolier Encyclopedia
most of his critics have misrepresented his position. (my note - that "position" being the one Hannity prescribes to...) The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism... Nor was he ignorant of the menace of the dictators. Few people linked the need for rearmament more strongly with the ambitions of Germany. Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness Encyclopedia (dot com...)
Although contemporaries and scholars during and after the war criticized Chamberlain for believing that Hitler could be appeased, recent research argues that Chamberlain was not so naive and that appeasement was a shrewd policy developed to buy time for an ill-prepared Britain to rearm. BBC World History
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was seen as a failure by many at the time, and for many years to follow. Current thinking has shifted, however, believing Chamberlain to have shrewdly agreed to appeasement to give the British armed forces the time they desperately needed to prepare for full-blown war. So I've presented facts and evidence that just about negates the entire point of Hannity's book. The view of Chamberlain's fearful appeasement of Hitler being a cause for WWII has been debunked for many years. Do you think Hannity came up with this all on his own? LOL! This argument has been part of the neocon chickenhawk playbook since the 60's. They don't even dare trot this one out anymore. Modern historians view Chamberalin as a shrewed tacticician who desperately needed time to complete the aggressive re-armamant initiative he had started. Britain's military readiness didn't happen by accident, and to have confronted Hitler PREMATURELY would have had disasterous consequences. I didn't cite something from the "liberal media" here Hannitoids, so resist that inclination to reach for the first line rationalization in your tautology when confronted with disquieting facts. I know it's hard. Also, I am not a "liberal" unless that definition includes everone who trashes your little radio hero, so you can skip that other cop out when reality rocks your neocon fantasy world. So, some questions for the Hannitoids: 1. If Hannity's case was so air tight, why would he (intentionally?)omit the current view of Chamberlain's appeasement policy in favor of an outdated perspective? 2. If Hannity's little straw man case against liberals is based on an innacurate view of Chamberlain's appeasement policy, don't you think this widely-held perspective should be addressed, or an attempt be made to negate it, since it significantly weakens his entire case? 3. Do you accept everything someone says as fact just because they're on radio and TV? Doesn't this call into question Hannity's intellectual honesty concerning the rest of his hackneyed history lesson? 4. Do you think that, since the research here took all of 10 minutes on Google, Hannity was aware of it and INTENTIONALLY ignored it? Whould he have ignored it since he might consider you morons who, bindly and stupidly, accept his every utterance as fact - and who would be none the wiser anyway? I'll answer question 1 for you. Although liberals may lack the "moral clarity" to defeat evil per Sean Hannity; Hannity lacks the "moral clarity" to be truthful. Sean? I know you're out there (begging, pathetically, for 5 star reviews...) I'm calling you out, boy, for an intellectual spankin'.
| 
