Well, I watched Dan Rather interview Saddam Hussein last night. Some people have said that he tossed Saddam a lot of softballs, but I didn't think it was a horrible interview. If I were sitting in front of Saddam, I'm not sure I'd do a Hardball routine myself. A more important question is, should Rather have interviewed him in the first place?

Tim Graham at NRO thinks not:

The interview was providing aid and comfort to the enemy, as if Edward R. Murrow would have jumped at interviewing Hitler;

Um, not sure I'd go that far. Irresponsible journalism is about as far as I would go. There probably should have been more context to the interview (like how Saddam came to power, how bloody and repressive his regime is), though likely CBS took for granted that most people know such things.

Anyway, here's the transcript if you're interested.

And here's Scrappleface's take:

Rather to Interview Bush on Same Terms as Saddam

(2003-02-27) -- U.S. President George Bush has agreed to be interviewed by CBS News reporter Dan Rather under the same terms Saddam Hussein granted to CBS.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the White House will provide the tape, and the videographers, will screen the video when the interview is over and upload it to CBS within 24 hours.

Mr. Rather and his crew will be driven around Washington, D.C., in three different cars before being taken to the White House.

Mr. Fleischer said that Mr. Rather will also be able to interview the U.S. President once every 10-to-12 years.