Every so often, the New York Times acts like the New York Times oughta. Here's a link to a major investigative report that says, among other things…
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
This debunks an awful lot of what we've been told, mostly because partisans made up details to spin the story so they could use it. I'll be interested to see who rebuts it, who accepts it and who just ignores it. I'm betting "ignores it" will be the norm.