Honestly, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, but at some point there has to be a critical mass of evidence that pushes this onto national headlines. So far, the only national paper I know of that has covered Benghazi at all is the Washington Post, but even that coverage has problems.
That said, I think this is important to note. It is important for two reasons- one, because it provides concrete proof that the State Department (and therefore Hillary Clinton) knew about the security threats to the Benghazi mission, and knew that it was woefully under-defended. The second reason is that it proves what I said in my analysis of the already released Benghazi documents: however clinical and calm the words in official reports were, the Benghazi mission was doing the bureaucratic equivalent of getting on their desks and screaming to get more security.
I could say more, but the report sums it up quite well with this quote:
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.