The result, the report said, was a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

But while the unclassified version of the report, which was released Tuesday night, is undeniably harsh in its analysis of the State Department's management ahead of the attack, it also appears to undermine a number of the more outlandish charges made during the heat of the uproar this fall.

For instance, while many figures -- led, in large part, by the news analysts at Fox News -- suggested that the administration had opted to watch the crisis unfold rather than send military reinforcements, the report found "no evidence of undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington."

Many critics of the administration had raised question about why a team of specially trained military operators had been dispatched to an airfield in Italy but not, apparently, sent to help fend off the attack.

Instead, the report concluded that the response by all agencies involved was "timely and appropriate," and despite speculation to the contrary, "there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

Another accusation rebutted by the report was the notion that senior-level officials had in some way refused to permit CIA operatives working out of a nearby annex to travel to the main compound to assist in repelling the attack.

That detail, first reported by Fox News, was not correct, the report said.