I think there is often a plausible defence of (somewhat inconvenient) truth-telling, even if Cameron's recent comments about Pakistan appeared off-the-cuff rather than a deliberate strategy of increased public pressure.
Beyond that, Cameron seems (laudably) interested in talking about foreign policy in a demotic and accessible way - yet seems to risk losing his grip on the details when he is shooting the breeze in this way.
China was not pleased to be cited as a reason for the Trident nuclear deterrent during the leader's debate. That is certainly a longstanding US neo-con talking point, but not one Dave usually subscribes to.
I assume Cameron does know the history of world war two - and he has been pretty apologetic over his embarassing slip in stating that Britain was a junior partner to the USA in 1940.
So what of his latest statement out on a meet the people tour about Iranian nukes.
"I think [Turkey will] be a good political influence because they can help us solve some of the world's problems like the Middle East peace process, like the fact Iran has got a nuclear weapon."
Downing Street has explained that the PM "mis-spoke". Another "slip of the tongue" - though still an embarassing one when stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon is such an important foreign policy priority for the government.
Could any more be read into this as a Freudian slip?
Some may hear fearful echoes of the ramping up of the threat from Iraq's WMD. But the opposite reading is possible - one of a stoic high Tory pragmatism about the inevitable threats of a dangerous world. Maybe Cameron does not see an Iranian nuke as an existential threat to be countered at all costs if he can, it seems, already imagine living in that world, and getting on with the job in reaction to it.
Iran ought to be on his mind, for matters of high diplomacy and low politics.
Foreign Secretary William Hague might want the PM to pay more attention to his vigorous round of op-ed articles and interviews to toughen the sanctions regime. (Perhaps I could also recommend Malcolm Chalmers of RUSI and his useful Fabian Review essay on an effective diplomatic strategy towards Iran for the PM's summer red box!).
Iran does have the potential to cause trouble for the Coalition at home too. The LibDems' decision to offer a manifesto commitment ruling out military action against Iran in any circumstances did not exactly send shockwaves through the United Nations back in March. Nick Clegg will not have particularly weighed up the chances of being in a Tory-led Coalition when making it.
But perhaps the reaction to Cameron's off-the-cuff diplomacy also tell us something about media framing. I suspect that had Prime Minister Brown in 2007 - or John Major in 1990 - mis-spoken so often on international affairs in their first three months, many commentators might have read more into the pattern. The media seem agreed that Cameron has taken to the public performance aspect of being PM like a natural, though he isn't necessarily known as a master of detail. Mis-speaking does not fit with that script - so not so much is made of it.
To be fair, none of the Cameron gaffes have yet been in the Gerald Ford class. The US President failed basic high school cold war politics in the 1976 Presidential debate in promising he would never allow any Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
Still, the PM might want to brush up on his geopolitics before he gets a reputation.