The No Accountability Administration 

As you know, four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed on September 11, 2012, during a series of attacks against our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. An independent commission, led by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, blasted Hillary Clinton's State Department for "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies." 

In response to the report, then-Secretary of State Clinton placed four mid-level officials on administrative leave in December. They have been on paid leave for the past eight months. (Wouldn't you love to get "punished" like that -- no work and with pay? Only in Washington, D.C.) 

But this week, after another "thorough review" determined that none of the individuals "breached their duty," the bureaucrats were cleared of all responsibility and installed back in their jobs by Secretary of State John Kerry. 

Keep in mind that their suspensions had nothing to do with covering up the events that took place in Benghazi that night. These individuals were suspended because of the dereliction of duty in responding to repeated pleas from Americans on the ground for more security PRIOR to the attack. 

You may recall that Eric Nordstrom, a former security officer in Libya, testified before Congress about his frustration in dealing with the State Department, which kept rejecting his requests for additional security. Nordstrom said, "For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building," referring to the State Department. 

So if these folks didn't do anything wrong, why did Hillary kick them out? One of the four, Raymond Maxwell, has always maintained he was wrongly scapegoated. 

Members of Congress are furious. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said: 
 

• "Instead of accountability, the State Department offered a charade that included false reports of firings and resignations and now ends in a game of musical chairs where no one misses a single day on the State Department payroll. It is now clear that the personnel actions taken by the department in response to the Benghazi terrorist attacks were more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a failure in leadership."

Under pressure from senators during her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as to why our consulate in Benghazi was attacked, Hillary famously screamed, "What difference does it make?" It is increasingly clear that to this administration none of it makes any difference. No one is being held accountable -- not the terrorists who attacked our consulate nor the bureaucrats who denied requests for additional security. 

Speaking of zero accountability, even though she claimed responsibility for Benghazi, Hillary now demands $200,000 in speaking fees. And if you believe the liberal media, she may well be on her way to becoming president of the United States in spite of the Benghazi fiasco. 

Stand With Egypt's Military 

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal arguing that America should stand with Egypt's military and against the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. He makes a persuasive case. Here are some key excerpts. 
 

• "We need not dwell on the Brotherhood's Islamist ideology to grasp its authoritarian nature. It desires confrontation with Egypt's military because it rejects the legitimacy of any government it does not control. …Should it ever regain power, whether through free elections or otherwise, it will never let go, as Mohammed Morsi was busy demonstrating in his year as president. 

  "Opposing the Brotherhood are Egypt's military and a collection of citizens who refuse to live under an authoritarian theocracy: Coptic Christians, pro-democracy intellectuals, a middle class that desires a functioning economy, and women who do not yearn for the burqa. Without the military's support, however, this group would be hopelessly outmatched. … 

  "Hand-wringing about abstract political theories or calling on all sides to exercise restraint is divorced from Egypt's reality. …In recent days, Mr. Obama has put his thumb on the scale for the Brotherhood -- by calling off next month's joint military exercise and, according to the office of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), by secretly halting aid. …

  "This is the wrong move. The U.S. should support the military because even with its obvious flaws, it is more likely to support the palpable U.S. interests at stake. Three are basic.

  "First, it is in the U.S. interest to have an Egyptian government committed to upholding the Camp David Accords with Israel, the foundation of U.S. Middle East policy since 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 for negotiating Camp David, and it has never accepted it. … With Iran nearing its long-sought nuclear capability, America and Israel would be worse off than before 1979. The U.S. is doing little to stop Iran, but we can still save Camp David. Backing Egypt's military is the best bet. 

  "Second, and closely related: If the Sinai Peninsula slips from Cairo's control, terrorists like Hamas (a Brotherhood subsidiary) and al Qaeda will use the area as a haven and a highway for smuggling arms to Gaza for use against Israel and to both sides in the Syrian civil war. Egypt's army is far more likely to prevent this nightmare scenario than the Brotherhood.

  "Third, for purely economic reasons, the Suez Canal must remain open. Annually, some 14% of global shipping and 30% of oil supplies pass through the canal. The Brotherhood is far more susceptible to suicidal impulses if it means harming the West. Egypt's military does not prize martyrdom."