Would it be "fair" for NBC and CNN to air programming on the life of Hillary Clinton in 2015 when she has not said if she will be a candidate for president in 2016?
That's the issue being raised by the National Republican Committee, which wants NBC and CNN to drop their upcoming programming.
CNN Films is planning a feature-length film on Clinton as the former first lady, former senator and former secretary of state.
NBC has gone a step farther and is planning a miniseries, tentatively called "Hillary" and starring Diane Lane.
Playing a little tit for tat, the GOP is threatening to block the two networks from covering presidential debates and the national convention if the networks do not drop their plans to tout the potential Democratic candidate for president.
The question undoubtedly will arise if NBC and CNN are showing bias in airing such programming before the presidential election? Are the networks secretly supporting the former first lady in a second run for the presidency?
Would the Democrats scream if ABC and CBS chose to do a film and/or miniseries on a leading contender, if there were one, on the GOP side of the presidential campaign? My guess is, Yes!
I hope I'm just being a cynic, but is there really a terrorist threat going on or is the government merely attempting to prove the NSA needs to continue its massive intrusion into American's privacy via telephone wiretap, Internet email scanning and mail tracking.
I would hope the federal government wouldn't go to the extreme of closing embassies, sending embassy personnel back to the United States and basically frightening every American in the Middle East just to end momentum that was building in Congress to limit and/or stem the massive privacy invasions perpetrated on Americans in the name of national security.
Of course, it was the federal government that led the U.S. into a more-than-decade-long war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the premises of non-existent weapons of massive destruction, al-Qaeda training camps and 9/11 planners.
We all can remember President George W. Bush's secretary of state standing before the United Nations saying he had proof of WMDs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, only to find out after the U.S. invaded Iraq there were no WMDs and no U.S. evidence of WMDs.
So, if the federal government would posture the U.S. into a war, should we believe the government about an impending terrorist attack to U.S. interest and/or embassies in the Middle East? If we believe President Obama that al-Qaeda is on the run and devastated by drone attacks, should we now believe it's strong enough to attack?
Maybe the real issue is how do we separate fact from fiction, a terrorist threat from government posturing and/or a high level alert from government rhetoric? I wish I knew the answer, but then I'm a cynic and hope both the government is telling the truth and any terrorist attack is thwarted without loss of American life.
Contact Jim Smith at email@example.com