Three things came to mind upon seeing the cover of the new issue of Time, which hits newsstands today.

1. Whoa, green border.

2. Nice headline.

3. Ridiculous photo manipulation.

Let's start with the good. Time continues with its impressive brand of advocacy journalism when it comes to climate change. It seems like the magazine has always been one step ahead of its competitors when it comes to environmental reporting, going all the way back to 1989, when it named "Endangered Earth" as its Planet of the Year.

The magazine has stepped up its coverage in recent years, especially around Earth Day. Remember the polar bear issue from two years ago with the "Be Worried. Be Very Worried" headline? Last year's issue featured a penguin for its "Global Warming Survival Guide" cover.

Which brings us to this week's issue. The article by Bryan Walsh is a good one, and in light of President Bush's climate change speech two days ago, quite timely. He outlines a plan of attack that includes a national cap-and-trade system, tougher energy-efficiency mandates, as well as significant public and private investment in green technologies that will "lead us to a postcarbon world."

And so it's a real shame that such a strong story will be largely ignored, thanks to the stupid -- and some might argue offensive -- cover photo. Look, we get the war metaphor. There's no need to slam it over our heads by replacing the American flag with a tree in the most famous war photo of all time. It made us cringe, so how do you think veterans -- including the few surviving men who actually fought at Iwo Jima -- are going to react?

Not well is how. The magazine hasn't even been delivered yet, so we're guessing these angry veterans are just the beginning of a controversy that will have many in the media talking a lot about the cover photo and very little about the substance of the article. That's no way to promote intelligent discussion about climate change solutions.

The cover also seems like a good way to further alienate a sizable segment of the population, many of whom already are skeptical of environmentalists, and climate change in general.

Don't worry, we're not going to go all Glen Beck on you with a fake-outrage rant. It is, after all, only a magazine cover. We just think it was a bad editorial decision that's going to make news for the wrong reasons. And at a time when Bush still can't say "climate change" without the "debate" qualifier, it's not going to help the "war against global warming."