The New York Times: "In his strongest comments since the crisis erupted 10 days ago, Mr. Obama used unambiguous language to assail the Iranian government during a news conference at the White House, calling himself 'appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the past few days.'"
AP's Burns writes, "President Barack Obama described himself on Tuesday as being 'entirely consistent' in his expressions of concern about the disputed Iranian election and the government crackdown that followed street protests. But his language clearly has gotten tougher since his first statement that the suppression of dissent was 'of concern to me.'"
Video: During President Obama's afternoon press conference Tuesday, he refuted suggestions that he is only now getting tough on Iran. Is his measured approach still the right one? Rachel Maddow is joined by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Certainly, the president's rhetoric has gotten progressively tougher. But the White House would argue -- as the president did yesterday -- that his language has tracked with the situation. When Republicans first expressed outrage about what John McCain called a "fraud" election, Obama tempered his words. After all, the U.S. and the international community had no independent election monitors at polling stations in Iran. And as Obama said, he didn't want to inflame the situation and make the U.S. a "foil" or an excuse for the Iranian government to use violence against protestors. When the Iranian government threatened violence, Obama spoke out more strongly. And now that the government has acted, he has taken his toughest tone. That, the White House would argue, is consistent.
The New York Daily News' cover has a photo of an aggrieved Obama from yesterday's press conference with the headline: "Death that broke his heart." Subheadline: "Obama grieves for Iranian martyr Neda."