Chris Young at Explananda commends to us some points about rhetoric and its political context that I don't find persuasive. Follow back the links from Chris's post. They lead to a discussion of the difficulty of making critical observations about foreign regimes when doing so could be used to stoke up a foreign policy impetus to which you don't want to contribute. So, for example, criticizing Iran as 'a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state' is problematic - even if Iran is that - because it 'provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike' (Kevin Drum).
I don't get this. Language is a more capable instrument than it implies: you can say more than one thing; and doing so you can make it clear, where there's an illegitimate inference someone might want to draw from your words, that they aren't free to draw it. As well as saying that the Iranian regime is repressive, theocratic, etc, you can spell out that this doesn't mean you're in favour of a military strike against it (my own view, as it happens). You are not then responsible for whipping up enthusiasm for a military strike.
The theme Chris draws attention to here is close to another that is very common: namely, that political criticism directed against one's own government is likely to be more effective than drawing attention to the misdemeanours, and worse, of other governments. This argument has the virtue of reminding people that injustices and crimes close to home matter. But otherwise it is without merit. The anti-Apartheid movement wouldn't have got off the ground had people been swayed by it, and Amnesty International wouldn't be the organization it is. One's responsibility as a citizen in monitoring the policies of one's own government doesn't negate either the rights of human beings in other countries or the exigencies of solidarity with them when they are under attack.