When his distaste of post WW2 US foreign policy encompassed NATO's actions against Milošević, and the Serbian dictator's trial, many critics thought he had made a major misjudgement and he came in for a lot of flak.Whether he deserved that flak or not (he didn't) it can't be said he opposed actions against a dictator. As elementary history reports, Milošević exercised his repellent power only when elected, much like our own dear leader. He resigned only after an uprising and the collapse of popular support. In a strict sense, Milošević was not a dictator.
Somehow I doubt that a veteran BBC journalist like Kirsty Wark would ever refer to Tony Blair as a dictator despite the fact that, unlike Milošević, he retains power even though he no longer has majority support (did he ever?) and, what's more, ignored a popular uprising in order to launch an aggressive war in which, at a rough estimate, twenty times more people have died than in the former Yugoslavia (i.e. to justify the bombing that increased the death toll). To describe him as such would be, of course, factually incorrect, merely expressing an opinion, and also thoroughly unprofessional.