WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED This is the true memoir of one US Air Force navigator’s journey from the schoolhouses of Air Training Command to the nuclear alerts of the Cold War to combat in a 35-year-old anachronism called the B-52. It is a first-hand account of life during the last days of Strategic Air Command, the early days of Air Combat Command and the ensuing military drawdown of the 1990s. From peacetime training exercises across the globe to combat operations in Desert Storm, Jim Clonts takes the reader inside the cockpit where life and death are seconds apart. Often comical, sometimes heart-pounding, other times tragic, WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED takes you into the world of military aviation, a crucible where warriors learn the true nature of character, conscience and mortality.

The Politics of Hypocrisy
by Jim Clonts, 2006

ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT MILITARY.COM, October 02, 2006

Recently I found myself arguing with a liberal. Normally I find this to be a waste of time, as most liberals I know would argue with a compass given half a chance, but this time I managed to learn something from my Democrat friend. The forum for this argument was the electronic battleground of email. Aside from eating up time I should have spent working, I did gain some insight into the liberal mind. These people absolutely thrive on the concept of hypocrisy. It is their shield, their fall back position. We were discussing US foreign policy and every time I made a salient point of which she could not respond, she would bring up some travesty from our past and make the claim of hypocrisy.

I wrote something like this:

"I think ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and giving Iraq a shot at a government for the people and by the people is a good thing."

Her reply was something like this:

"Look at all the Native Indians the United States killed. Spread democracy!"

Her response did not address the question of Iraqi democracy at all. She felt it necessary to trump my assertion that the US is doing a good and noble thing with something bad we did a hundred and twenty years ago. She responded in this manner several times until, frankly, I lost interest and stopped responding.

When one of my friends emailed her an op-ed piece I wrote about interrogation techniques, she responded quickly, too quickly to have actually read the article. One of the main points of my op-ed was the Geneva Convention Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners of War are incredibly vague and need to be better defined. Her response was, "The United States doesn't even follow the Geneva Conventions. Keep spreading democracy!"

At first I was befuddled by her reply. I just complained that the Convention's rules were ambiguous and she complained we didn't follow them. What? And what does democracy have to do with it? She always finishes her emails by lambasting our efforts to spread democracy, as though we are not worthy to attempt this. It was after this response, I knew I had unlocked the secret to liberal debate.

The modern liberal loves hypocrisy. It's just too easy and so politically correct. When faced with a diverse point of view, just raise the notion that your opponent is not worthy of taking a position. Some favorite fodder for liberals in our national history include slavery, our treatment of the American Indian, ignoring the Holocaust, US support for the Sha of Iran, the Iran-Contra fiasco, Viet Nam, and, of course, faulty intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. No matter the topic of discussion, you can bet the liberals will bring up one of these as proof we are we are not allowed to assume the moral high-ground.

Every now and then I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-Span. This is where the Prime Minister of Great Britain stands before the House of Commons and answers their questions. The first time I saw this I was astounded. Here was Tony Blair of the Labor Party receiving questions from his Conservative rivals and actually responding on-topic to the question at hand. They actually addressed each other, made extremely persuasive arguments and debated national topics. Unlike our Congress where most speeches are political sound bites made to empty chambers or our presidential debates where the candidates are not allowed to address each other directly, these men and women actually called each other on the carpet. At the end of the evening, the average British citizen not only knows why Blair supports an issue, they know both sides of the issue and can form their own decision.

Although all politicians are capable of political-speak, I've never heard a liberal actually answer a question with a salient, on-topic answer. They constantly criticize the war in Iraq and our efforts to fight terror, but when asked what they would do differently, they spout something like, "George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and took us into this war under false pretenses. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. We must change course. New leadership is required, a new vision, a new strategy." Did I miss something here? The President’s stated strategy is to train the Iraqi security forces until they can handle the job themselves, then bring our forces home. This may or may not be a good strategy, but it is a strategy. If the Democrats have a better one, what is it? I'm not opposed to a better strategy. How about giving us one, please!

Maybe they have one and just won’t admit it. The only pretense of a Democrat strategy I’ve heard so far is from Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Murtha. They say to pull our troops out immediately. This is not a popular strategy with the American people, so most Democrats won’t adopt it, however, staying the course is not exactly popular either. At least the President has the guts to stand by his convictions. If leaving Iraq to the insurgents is really the right thing to do, then the Dems need to stand behind their convictions, popular or not, and let the American people decide their fate in November.

Modern liberals have either forgotten how to debate or have decided it does not serve them well to try. They just attack, typically with very effective one-liners completely out of the context of the debate. One-liners are great sound bite fodder for the media. Comprehensive and complex arguments are too long for a news update between My Name is Earl and The Office, or for the moving ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen on cable news networks.

I was a Democrat, albeit a conservative Democrat, until Al Gore. I watched him take apart Senator Bill Bradley during the Democrat debates in 2000 not by answering the moderator’s questions, but by off-topic sound bite politics, accompanied by personal attacks on the Senator, whom I consider an honorable statesman. Bradley thoughtfully answered every question in a calm, collected manner obviously not suited to Democrat politics. Al Gore never answered one question in that debate, but his one-liners filled the airwaves wherever the media could fit them in. I ended up voting for George Bush, after voting for Bill Clinton twice.

My realization that liberals do not respond to valid arguments has caused me to alter my writing style. Obviously one who rights op-ed pieces wants to stir public debate. If I slam the coffin lid of logic too hard on a liberal, he or she will just respond with accusations of hypocrisy based on some off-topic, non-arguable topic. They will spout their non-sequitur drivel, give up and move on. I want to engage them, force them to stay on-topic and in the fray. The more people learn what is in the mind of the modern liberal the better. Sometimes liberals need a little encouragement to say what they really mean, so I'll make my point, but leave the door open just enough they don't get discouraged. They will sense the opportunity and jump at the chance to show their enlightened intellects, providing us with vivid examples of the kind of America they want. This is good for debate, good for America and, generally, good for the Conservative movement.

Are we hypocrites? Sure. Let's face it, we're humans. Every people of every nation on this planet is plagued by hypocrisy. It is as much a part of human behavior as any emotion or ideology. All of us have had those "do as I say, not as I do" moments. The truth is hypocrites can still be right about some things. Right and wrong don't change simply because a hypocrite espouses a position. Mom and Dad might not have always worn their seatbelts, but that doesn't mean they were wrong in telling the kids to wear theirs.

The United States was created and matured in very different times. Yes, we did have our share of atrocities, but the United States Constitution, written by men with flaws, is still the greatest single vessel of human dignity and liberty in the history of Man. As a people and a nation we often fall short of our potential, but we cannot give up striving to make a better world because of past failures. We have to assume the moral high-road and fight evil, oppression and tyranny wherever we find them, abroad or at home. The liberals may not believe we’re worthy to take up the fight, but someone has to.

Welcome to: JimClonts.Com E-mail: b52radar@jimclonts.com