In Katie Couric’s interview of Governor Sarah Palin, the umpteenth attempted “gotcha” moment—coincidentally, also the umpteenth question—was when she asked Gov. Palin whether or not it is wise to engage in direct diplomacy with rogue nations, as supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Couric asked: “Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?” Palin responded, resolutely: “Not without preconditions.”

The gotcha nature of this question became clear once The Affable Eva Braun of Morning TV (now of CBS Evening News, and not so affable) shot back: “So are you saying Henry Kissinger is naïve for supporting that?” Palin had just met Kissinger—now all of a sudden the MSM’s go-to guy when it comes to foreign policy. But while Palin holds the same position as the rest of today’s foreign policy experts, including the current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Katie Couric felt the need to “correct” the record. After the interview, Couric announced: “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview; he told us he supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, then with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions.”

Two things come to mind from all of this: First, what exactly is Katie saying here? Is it more important to make Sarah Palin look like a fool than it is to grasp the idea that when dealing with heads of state who think Israel is a “dying corpse” and needs to be annihilated, it is best to use what leverage we have in order to make the best deal possible, and, more importantly, concede nothing to those who may become our mortal enemies?

Moreover, does the MSM’s goal of eviscerating the Republican V.P. nominee on public television trump common sense? Whether or not Kissinger would negotiate with Iran and Syria without preconditions is irrelevant when the fact of the matter is we are talking about dealing with leaders who are for funding terrorists, blowing up Israel, and executing its own people for being gay.

To use a recent quote by Matt Damon, Couric’s fascination with watching Palin squirm is not just creepy, “it’s absurd!”

Which brings me to my second observation: Why all the attacks on Palin? Obama is the one who has been waffling—and not just on this issue! In his first presidential debate with John McCain, Obama denied the fact that he has been pledging throughout his campaign that he would meet with rogue nations without preconditions. As early as March of this year, Hillary Clinton called him out on this, saying her opponent’s intentions at the time were “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

And, not to belabor the point, who is to say Couric’s closer is completely accurate? Grammatically speaking, there is a slight ambiguity. One thing John McCain mentioned in the debate Friday was that Henry Kissinger may be for meeting certain representatives of state without preconditions, as is and has been standard policy, but that he certainly has never advocated negotiating with leaders of those states without preconditions. Katie’s use of “high-level” is even disputable in this case, and as I haven’t come across any record contradicting the conventional wisdom of those who we know have met Kissinger, I am tempted to side with the Republicans on this one.

But alas! While CBS’s David Letterman is privy to unaired tapes of Couric’s “exclusive” Sarah Palin interview, no sound-bite, email, or otherwise semi-legitimate documentation of Kissinger’s admission has yet been made available by the reputable news network. Once again, it seems, we’ll just have to take C-BS’s word for it.