To continue the subject of my previous post about President Obama's comments to Iran and how I would relate them to the President's current stand "Let's move on" on possible war crimes being committed by the Bush administration.

I noted the following statements by Republican members about how Obama is confronting the abuse in Iran:

"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on a Sunday morning talk show. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like."

"If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on ... obviously they are going to ask, do we really care about our principles?" Sen. Chuck Grassleysaid.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told "FOX News Sunday" that Obama, in person, needs to address the Iranian and American people -- he called the election backlash a potential "game changer" in Iran which Obama should leverage.

"This president is a great orator. This president needs to come out, he needs to speak to the American people, but more important he needs to speak to the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East and he has to make a forceful statement on behalf of the people on the streets for freedom and democracy," Hoekstra said. 

John McCain argued that treading softly isn't the right approach.

"People are being killed and beaten in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran, and we should stand up for them," he told FOX News. "The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring and we have stood up for freedom in every part of the world. We're not doing that."

"Well those that are being beaten in the streets of Tehran and around Iran obviously don't hold that view," he said. "So let's not take the side necessarily of the protestors...the fact is we should be on the side of a free and fair election, and not be in favor of an oppressive brutal government."

In support of Obama's actions were...

Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

George Will: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what's going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don't need that reinforced.

Peggy Noonan, another conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan, denounced the right-wing attacks, particularly those from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). "To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous," she wrote, adding that "the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week."

Isn't it odd how our leader's views CHANGE when it comes to OTHER nations?

How would Graham, Grassley and McCain feel if other nations said the same things to the United States -- let the truth come out, punish the war criminals -- would they listen?  They haven't so far.  They just want to "MOVE ON".

Hundreds were beaten and tortured (some even innocent) in OUR prisons and we simply 'MOVE ON'. What you can't see or hear can't hurt you - attitude.

Hypocrites!