Maybe I missed something spending three years toiling away in the salt mines of Ohio (I was miner of the month in September 2007!), but was there a point at which dictators and terrorists became credible communicators of their own intent and rationale?
It's understandable why right-wingers run to bullshit like this every time it happens, but it sort of undercuts the whole steely warrior of truth mentality to incredulously run to any statement by a dictator or terrorist group and point at it like the goddamn gospel of reverse foreign policy just slipped out. Of course, if they didn't leap like bunnies at the nearest picture of a carrot, we wouldn't get golden nuggets like this:
Finally, as with Ron Paul’s refusal to return contributions from white supremacists, it’s reasonable to demand that a candidate unambiguously disavow the endorsement and denounce the endorser.
Taking a donation requires two active parties - one to donate, and one to accept. Someone endorsing someone else doesn't require two active parties, because it's not the same fucking thing. Personally, I'd prefer a Steely Warrior Man (And Woman) Guide To Interpreting Evil. For instance, when Iran calls Obama the "great whore of Israel" in 2009, is it a secret mating call? When North Korea calls America the "great tyrant of our sovereignty" in late 2011, is it because Obama beat Kim Jong Il at the game of online Risk they've been playing since last fall? When Hezbollah says that Obama is the tool of Zionist aggression, is it because he sent them an autographed copy of You Don't Mess With The Zohan three weeks after their birthday passed?
We need to know these things.
Image: totally accurate portrayal of the Soviet Union circa 1988.