(Note: This is the last column in the series.)

Pope Benedict XVI said in 2005, "Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism." To conclude this series of papers, I will say that Sean Hannity's political ideology unconsciously demonstrates a new form of totalitarianism which defines right and wrong in an artificially narrow sense; regards national security as the greatest good, elevating it above human rights and the law of God; accepts the coexistence of American big government, big business, and a swollen military to achieve the objective of national security; blends sin and sinners into a single homogeneous mass that must be defeated to preserve our national security; and intolerantly refuses to admit into its framework any clear facts that contradict its methods or call into question its objectives.

With the shattering of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, a titanic earthquake ripped through the United States and quickly swept across the world. Two shock waves of anger and patriotism predictably met at a point on the globe opposite the United States: the Middle East. Osama bin Laden and his evil cohorts were identified as the enemies, and they were in for a shakedown by the glorious US military. The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on the US, and war is what they got. In this cosmic battle against religiously inspired terrorists, America wages war on the side of good and the terrorists fight on the side of evil. Americans have been wakened from their postmodern, anything-goes slumber to the reality that, like it or not, the United States has a mission to save the world from evil. How much clearer could it get?

*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.

As George Bush shouts himself hoarse, becoming increasingly desperate in the face of what appears to be a mounting tidal wave against him along with his Republican allies heading into Tuesday's election, another troubling event has surfaced.

In today's Los Angeles Times staff writer Peter Spiegel has reported that none other than Richard Perle, Mr. Neoconservative along with Paul Wolfowitz, the super hawkish Cold Warrior called "The Prince of Darkness," has denounced Bush for invading Iraq.  The article in which Perle makes his disclosure appears in January's Vanity Fair.

Perle sternly disclaims the idea that neocons were fundamental figures in the planning of the Iraq War.  Others interviewed for the same article that also spoke critically about Bush's Iraq strategy are former Bush speechwriter David Frum and former Reagan Administration official Ken Adelman.

As Spiegel reveals, "Perle's prominent advocacy of invasion after the September 11 terrorist attacks - and his close relationship with the war's top architects, including Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy Defense secretary, and Douglas J. Feith, the former Pentagan policy chief - makes his reversal particularly noteworthy."