PAUL MIRENGOFF: The New York Times’ revisionist account of Benghazi. “I suspect that the Times story tells us more about Hillary Clinton’s assessment of the threat Benghazi poses to her likely 2016 run for president than it does about what happened in Benghazi. But to the extent that the Times story is viewed as shedding a new, different light on the Benghazi, perhaps the House should hold new hearings on the attack. . . . It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a ‘misstatement.'”

It’s all about trying to take the heat off Hillary. But we still don’t know why she refused repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. We also don’t know where Obama was that night. The Times doesn’t seem that interested in telling us, either.