I don't think that's actually true. If you're of the mind that you're going to find fault in the messenger to ignore/distract from the message, you're going to find some fault regardless of how well the messenger behaves (and the fault you choose does not have to be related to the topic at hand).
Really?
>If you're of the mind that you're going to find fault in the messenger to ignore/distract from the message, you're going to find some fault regardless of how well the messenger behaves
Yes, but the mud sticks a lot better if it is made of fresh shit. To only regard the people bickering is a mistake. Is the people watching you have to really consider.
Unfortunately, mud sticks well enough even if it isn't real, so I really don't think that's much of a concern.
>> All I am pointing out is that the US government would carry greater moral weight when lecturing others if it didn't keep invading places and propping up dictators.
Do you think anyone affected or with influence would give greater credence to US "lectures" if it had never invaded anyplace?
Maybe so, but it didn't do anything to stop the Berlin Blockade or the invasion of South Korea.
Not really. Russia was de facto involved in many of those conflicts (e.g. supplying fighters and pilots to North Korea during the Korean war to fight the UN), and had many of its own (e.g. the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, to name a few).