There must be something in the air near the Potomac that rots the brains of just about everyone who ventures into our nation’s capital. The latest example was Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta insisting that having women fighting in the frontlines would just about ensure that we’d never lose a future war.

Inasmuch as one in four women who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan claimed they were sexually assaulted, my own suggestion is that the only men with whom women in the armed services should affiliate are gays.

The propaganda would have it that women only want to have the opportunity to compete for the opportunity to serve in the infantry and armor units. People like Mr. Panetta insist that they oppose lowering military standards. To which, I say, with all due disrespect: phooey!

Just as soon as the social engineers notice that very few women are cutting it, those physical requirements will be dramatically reduced. Here in L.A., I’ll point out that we used to have physical standards for the L.A.P.D. But once the move was on to start recruiting women and Latinos, the strength and height requirements were quickly adjusted to accommodate weaker women and shorter men.

Even my wife, who even in these politically correct times happens to be a woman, agrees with me. To my argument, she adds that those people who refuse to recognize gender differences even go so far as to ignore menstruation. She points out that these monthly events involve pain and blood and would radically detract from the women’s ability to concentrate on the matter at hand on a battlefield.

One of the leaders in the campaign to stick women in the infantry is a retired Air Force officer, Colonel Martha McSally. In a debate I saw on Fox, when a retired general, Jerry Boykin, pointed out that flying missions and then returning to women’s barracks does not involve the same sort of gender-mingling as being on the ground in a war zone, Col. McSally typically ignored his logic and instead, sounding exactly like a liberal lunkhead, insisted on fairness and gender equality.

Although she nattered on about patriotism, sound judgment and courage, by fairness, what she meant was that military promotions are more easily obtained through combat missions. In this particular battle of the sexes, Gen. Boykin emerged victorious as soon as he concluded his remarks by stating that the job of the military is to win wars, not to worry about career opportunities for women.

Speaking of women, her adoring acolytes are already promoting Hillary Clinton for a presidential run in 2016. We are being told over and over again what a great job she’s done as secretary of state, although nobody has yet been able to come up with a single accomplishment, unless they’re referring to the neat way she managed to accept responsibility for the massacre in Benghazi without taking even the tiniest sliver of blame.

One fact that has gotten a lot of attention is that Mrs. Clinton visited 112 countries during her four years on the job. But I fail to see how that adds up to anything. It’s not as if she even has to do her own packing or rushing to catch a plane. To me, it means she found an easy way to keep her name and face in front of the public while managing to avoid Bill for weeks at a time.

For several years, one of the ugliest images I have had in my head has been of that last U.S. helicopter taking off and leaving our South Vietnamese allies stranded on a rooftop, knowing they would be tortured and murdered by the North Vietnamese. A second image has now joined that one. It’s of Hillary Clinton, in referring to the massacre in Benghazi, doing her hammy version of moral outrage and insisting that it made no difference if the four Americans were killed by terrorists or by some guys who just happened to be passing by our consulate.

How anyone could watch that slimy performance and not experience moral revulsion is beyond me. But, clearly, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” is the sort of person who can swallow any swill that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama serves up and swear it tastes just like chicken.

I had given up on “60 Minutes” a long time ago, but my curiosity got the better of me and against my better instincts, I tuned in. For my troubles I got to see Mr. Kroft go from allegedly being a professional journalist to being a matchmaker.

Once I heard that it was Obama who initiated the segment, and then insisted that it only run half-an-hour, I pretty much expected what I got. Here’s a guy who can spend an hour eating an ice cream cone on Martha’s Vineyard and not give it a second thought, but suddenly his time is at a premium.

According to Kroft, he felt he could either ask the two of them some tough questions regarding the goings-on in Syria and Egypt, and delve into the Benghazi cover-up, or he could question the President and the Secretary of State about their personal relationship. After asking himself what Jimmy Kimmel or Katie Couric would do, Kroft naturally went with the second option.

What the viewers might have surmised from this eHarmony-style commercial is that they both like candlelight dinners and moonlight strolls on the beach. Unfortunately, what they were less open about is that they both subscribe to Saul Alinsky’s approach to bringing Soviet-style socialism to America.

While watching the love fest, I couldn’t help but compare it to the “60 Minutes” show in 1992 when Bill and Hillary appeared in the run-up to the election, looking like a couple of strangers seated next to each other waiting for a bus.

After watching Barack and Hillary billing-and-cooing for 30 minutes, I suspect that by the time he got home, Michelle was waiting with a rolling pin and a ton of attitude, wanting to know where he got off cozying up to that honky bitch.

For my part, I will forever regret that I wasn’t on one of those congressional committees questioning her eminence, so that in response to her phony outburst, I could have replied, “For that matter, Mrs. Clinton, what difference does it really make if Bill only cheated with Monica Lewinsky or if he’s cheated on you with a thousand women, including your mother, your best friend, every woman on your staff and the family mutt?”

NOTE: I have been approached to host an internet talk radio show. The only hang-up is that it requires a certain level of sponsorship in order to get started. If you own a company, sell a product or provide a service, or if you know someone – preferably someone dedicated to conservatism – who owns a company, sells a product or provides a service, who would be willing to consider sponsoring my show, please contact me at [email protected], and I will be happy to answer any and all questions. In the meantime, you will all be alerted once I get airborne. Best of all, if the show does well, I will be able to quit dunning you folks for donations to the Fund to Keep Burt Prelutsky From Pursuing a Life of Crime!