The accuracy of the article is in question.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/12/3.../?subscriber=1
There are also some internal contradictions in the article as well as contradictions of previous NY Times articles. That the reporter interviewed all those folks with his pointed questions this long after the event and considering the threat any of them would be under if they expressed any incriminating "facts," and considering a Muslim tenet that lying to one's enemy is a tactic not a sin, it would have been extraordinary if there would have been much "revelation" in the answers to the questions. Nor does the article clear the administration of bungling the affair in terms of what has been pointed out ad nauseam as their lack of proper response, etc. It seems to be an attempt to clear the way for Hillary.
Nor does it explain why the administration kept changing its story and why it didn't stick to its original assertion that the attack was solely about a video. Nor of what importance it is, if true, which is in question, that it was solely local militias with no al Qaida influence. As Hillary might say--what's the difference?!! The embassy was ill-prepared against such an attack no matter by who, and, as the NY Times article points out, there were warnings.