The New York Times carries some water for Hillary Clinton about the Benghazi, Libya attack...

The New York Times: Its Revisionist Account of Benghazi...

Instapundit: "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."

Update:
Bi-Partisan skepticism over report claiming al Qaeda not involved in Benghazi attack.

ROGER KIMBALL: Benghazi: The New York Times vs. the Truth. “How are we to understand the Times’s latest entry into the contest to rewrite history for ideological fun and profit? My own sense is that it has less to do with salvaging President Obama’s tattered reputation — he is well on his way to winning the prize for the least competent and most destructive president in the history of the republic. No, Barack Obama is yesterday’s news, and unless and until he is impeached and removed from office he will be pretty much forgotten by purveyors of all the Newspeak fit to print. They have their eyes on another player in the Benghazi scandal, namely Hilary Clinton. If anyone emerged from that shameful episode more discredited than Barack Obama, it was Ms. Clinton. But time is passing fast, and there is a lot of remedial work to do if Hilary Clinton is to be suitably repackaged as the Democratic candidate for president. That ambition, I believe, stands behind this elaborate, breathtaking exercise in journalistic mendacity.”

10

Posted at 1:35 pm by Glenn Reynolds   

@AG_Conservative that's not reporting it's advocacy
— Chris Coon (@Coondawg68) December 29, 2013

A Fairy Tale by the NYTs for Hillary Clinton 

Update:
NYT's version completely False by Forces on the Ground
Eli Lake: Yes there is evidencing linking al Qaeda to Benghazi...