The most notable about the year-long strident banter over what really happened in Benghazi, Libya, has been the lack of facts. That changed this week with an exhaustive report by the New York Times based on months of painstakingly thorough interviews and analysis. The question now is whether this well-reasoned and well-balanced study will raise the level of debate.

From the start, the Obama administration has maintained the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was largely a spontaneous attack fueled by an anti-Islamic video posted on the Internet.

Some hard-line Republicans have cried foul, arguing it was a carefully-planned terrorist attack engineered by Al-Qaeda to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11. They alleged that the administration covered that up to protect the political future of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The truth, the Times found, lies somewhere in the middle, but a side of the middle closer to the administration than to those alleging treachery. The report concluded there is “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.”

Instead, it found the attack was led “by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi.” And that “it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

It’s time for the conspiracy mongers to put up or shut up.

Newsletter