What makes it "empty symbolism" is when he pretends to care, but doesn't really care. If he's not even willing to do the work required to pretend to care, but instead simply lies about caring and goes to great lengths to hide the fact that he doesn't care and lashes out at his critics for calling him on it, then that's far worse than "empty symbolism." Being a successful politician is all about "empty symbolism" anyway. It just so happens that Obama's symbolism is emptier than most, comprising lots of talk, but very few deeds.
Or, you know, support a Congressional investigation and not piss and moan about it. I mean the reason we're on our 8th investigation (I'm trusting jhunter's count here) is that none of the other investigations had the power to break through the stonewall erected by this administration. I doubt the current one will either. Without either media support or bipartisan support, a Congressional committee is virtually powerless to force the administration to comply with subpoenas and the like.
I have raised the issue before of what Watergate would have looked like if the media had been uninterested in pursuing it, and the Republicans in Congress had decided on a policy of obstruction. It would have looked like a partisan witch hunt. The Nixon administration would have gotten away with whatever it is they did (which was mostly the cover up by the way), and Nixon would have served two terms and been considered a generally good President.
Perhaps you should consider your own biases. You don't even finish reading past the parts of articles you agree with. If Polifact marks something as True that you like, that's good enough it seems, regardless of what the article actually means.
The vast, vast majority of the people who died in the other attacks were not Americans. In fact, there were actually no American diplomats killed on diplomatic property during Bush's administration. There was one who was killed in an adjacent parking lot in a car bomb attack. For the most part, the attacks during the Bush administration, as well as attacks during the Obama administration, with the exception of Benghazi, were unavoidable and required very little investigation. It's virtually impossible to stop terrorists from taking potshots at guards outside your embassy or throwing a Molotov cocktail at it. However, keeping a US ambassador safe? That seems to be more doable. Also, telling the truth about what happened and not obfuscating it or trying to put the blame on a Youtube video should be expected I think. Basically, none of the other diplomatic facility attacks are in any way relevant. They're complete red herrings. To bring them up in defense of Obama is simply dishonest misdirection.
