[xzins]

Both Time and Newsweek spinning for the terrorists.

These magazines are reprehensible traitors.

They actively seek to encourage the enemy.

They even frame it for them in terms of Bush and the election.

We need a call for ALL patriotic Americans to stop buying these 2 magazines.

[ASA Vet]

Way back in high school my govenment teacher required us to read a news weekly.
He recommended US News & world report because in his words
"both Slime and Newsweak were anti-American commie crap."

(Bet that wouldn't happen in a public school now.)

[syriacus]

We need a call for ALL patriotic Americans to stop buying these 2 magazines.

I've rarely been tempted to buy either of the magazines in the past few years.

Buying them (and certain left-leaning newspapers) is equivalent to contributing to the election campaigns of Democrats.

Subscribers might as well contribute cash directly to the DNC.

[StriperSniper]

They even frame it for them in terms of Bush and the election.

That's to give cover to the Dim's new talking point that every war related decision is now election driven.

[tallhappy]

Despite bin Laden’s apparently fresh interest in Iraq, sources in the region say there remains scant evidence that he had links to Saddam before the war.

These Newsweek people are the lowest of the low. Here is what they wrote in 1998:

Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer. U.S. intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common. Both men want U.S. military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK (following story). He says "any American who pays taxes to his government" is a legitimate target.

Saddam's terrorism capability is still small-time, according to senior U.S. officials. "He's nowhere close to the level of the Iranians or Hizbullah," says one. But terrorism may be Iraq's growth industry. An Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally and stays in touch with his clandestine services predicts that "very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The attacks, he says, would be aimed at American and British targets in the Islamic world. Washington is somewhat skeptical, but this source says plans have already been put into action under three "false flags": one Palestinian, one Iranian and one "the al-Qaeda apparatus," the loose collection of terrorists who receive bin Laden's patronage. "All these organizations have representatives in Baghdad," says the Arab intelligence officer.

From January 11, 1999: Saddam + Bin Laden?
BY CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, GREGORY L. VISTICA AND RUSSELL WATSON With JOSEPH CONTRERAS

[GrandMoM]

We need a call for ALL patriotic Americans to stop buying these 2 magazines.....I never buy TIME OR NEWSWEEK, but I do block them while waiting in line at the cashiers. I pick up any other mag. and scan it for a minute, then put it back in the wrong place which just happens to be TIME or NEWSWEEK!!!!!!!!!

[optimistically_conservative]

I think we should ask some important questions about the articles that come from inside terror cells from western media sources:

Why would an Arabic speaking anti-Western group show an interest in, go through the trouble required, and take the risk of, having "our" reporters at their meetings and photographing their attacks?

If the articles written by these groups are not translated, and assumable not read, by other Arabic speaking groups, what's the objective of these cells in having publicity in English media seen only in the West?

Can we assume that these cells are not doing this because of their high regard for freedom of the press? If not, are they being motivated to do this through bribes or other material support by the reporters in order to "gain access"? Or are these cells engaging in an intentional propaganda/PSYOPS effort targeting Western public opinion to win a war they cannot win on the battlefield? If the latter, are the Western media sources that not only willingly participate, but actively seek out participation, conspirators in the success of that propaganda campaign?

If they can be considered conspirators in that campaign, then should the deaths and injuries resulting from the attacks recorded (and arguably attacks conducted for the media to record) be attributed to the propaganda campaign and these willing accomplices? Can any material support provided, including quid pro quos and payment for services, be used by victims and their survivors to claim damages?

In other words, does the first amendment protect traitors and treasonous acts?