As I said in a post earlier today, any problem Sarah Palin had in that interview is her own fault — on no one else’s head. But readers have been weighing in with critiques of Gibson’s performance, and some of their criticisms are right-on.
Did he have to glower? Did he have to distort her previous comments? Did he have to condescend like crazy? (No way he would have done it with a left-wing woman.) Did he have to go all gotcha on the Bush Doctrine?
I’ll tell you something about the Bush Doctrine. In the beginning, it was very clear and simple: All governments that aid or abet terror in any way shall henceforth be treated the same as terrorists themselves. But then the doctrine got murky — acquired many branches and penumbrae.
Norman Podhoretz has a whole chapter on this in World War IV, I believe. Even I couldn’t tell you all that the Bush Doctrine has come to mean or imply. I say “even I,” because I’m supposed to be a close student of this stuff.
Remember this about Gibson, too: A lot of pressure was on him. Why? Because he had the first interview, with this much-hated figure. He was standing in for the whole MSM — and they were depending on him. He just had to be somewhat hostile, he had to trip her up, if only a little. Otherwise, his colleagues would have said he had blown his opportunity — their opportunity — and gone all soft.
In the eyes of the arrogant MSM, he was “vetting” for all.
So — walk a yard or two in his moccasins . . .