YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

VA employees rack up $2.6 billion in credit card charges for veterans care

Veterans Affairs employees last year racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in government credit-card bills at casino and luxury hotels, movie theaters and high-end retailers such as Sharper Image and Franklin Covey — and government auditors are investigating, citing past spending abuses.

All told, VA staff charged $2.6 billion to their government credit cards.

The Associated Press, through a Freedom of Information request, obtained the VA list of 3.1 million purchases made in the 2007 budget year. The list offers a detailed look into the everyday spending at the government's second largest department.

By and large, it reveals few outward signs of questionable spending, with hundreds of purchases at prosthetic, orthopedic and other medical supply stores.

But there are multiple charges that have caught the eye of government investigators.

At least 13 purchases totaling $8,471 were charged at Sharper Image, a specialty store featuring high-tech electronics and gizmos such as robotic barking dogs. In addition, 19 charges worth $1,999.56 were made at Franklin Covey, which sells leather totes and planners geared toward corporate executives.

Government reports in 2004 said these two companies, by virtue of the types of products they market, would "more likely be selling unauthorized or personal use items" to federal employees.

Many of the 14,000 VA employees with credit cards, who work at headquarters in Washington and at medical centers around the nation, also spent tens of thousands of dollars at Wyndham hotels in places such as San Diego, Orlando, Fla., and on the riverfront in Little Rock, Ark. One-time charges ranged up to $8,000.

On at least six occasions, employees based at VA headquarters made credit card charges at Las Vegas casino hotels totaling $26,198.

VA spokesman Matt Smith the department was reviewing these and other purchases as part of its routine oversight of employee spending. He noted that many of the purchases at Sharper Image and other stores included clocks for low-vision veterans, humidifiers, air purifiers, alarm devices and basic planner products.

Smith said all the casino hotel expenditures in 2007 were for conferences and related expenses. He said the spending was justified because Las Vegas is a place where "VA is building a new medical center and an increasing number of veterans are calling home."

"The Department of Veterans Affairs, like many public and private groups, hosts conferences and meetings in Las Vegas due to the ease of participant travel, the capacity of the facilities, and the overall cost associated with hosting a conference," he said.

According to VA policy, purchase cards may be used at hotels to rent conference rooms or obtain audiovisual equipment or other items for VA meetings. They should not be used to reserve lodging. Auditors long have urged the VA to adopt policies to encourage use of free conference rooms. Auditors previously faulted the agency for booking rooms at expensive casino hotels without evidence it first had sought free space.

In the coming weeks, auditors at the Government Accountability Office and the VA inspector general's office are to issue reports on purchase card use and spending controls at the VA and other agencies. The reports are expected to show lingering problems at the VA, which auditors cited in 2004 for lax spending controls that wasted up to $1.1 million.

The list of charges provided to the AP gives the vendor, amount purchased, location and employee name; in most cases it does not indicate the specific item purchased. Requests by the AP for lists of the additional data in a timely manner were repeatedly declined on privacy and proprietary grounds.

The VA list shows that some credit-card holders took a modest route. VA employees in locations such as Portland, Ore., Gainesville, Fla., and Sheridan, Wyo., had charges for Motel 6 and Travelodge inns. One VA headquarters employee appears to have passed up casino hotels by booking at a Holiday Inn Express in Las Vegas for $787.75.

"For government travel and other spending, you have to be mindful of the appearances you're creating," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "If you're staying at a hotel at a strip in Vegas, you better have a pretty good reason for why a taxpayer should be funding the stay."

"It's not like the VA hasn't gotten into trouble for credit card abuses in the past," he added. "I find it hard to justify any government purchase from Sharper Image — unless you get something really goofy, it's going to be cheaper elsewhere."

Penalties for misuse of government credit cards range from suspension of the credit card to a reprimand and disciplinary action. Employees may be criminally prosecuted for fraud. More serious cases in recent years involved purchases of computers, televisions, DVD players and other items that were then sold to friends or kept for personal use.

"It's all being looked at," said Belinda Finn, the VA's assistant inspector general for auditing, in a telephone interview. Pointing to Sharper Image purchases in particular, Finn said many of the VA expenses identified by the AP raised serious "red flags."

"For a lot of the transactions on purchase cards, to be effective you really need to keep a close watch," she said. "It's really the first-level supervisors who know what's going on the most."

Congressional leaders said the expenditures were troubling.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on oversight, said he would question VA officials about the purchases at a hearing set for July. Mitchell, D-Ariz., said he feared there may be "a growing culture of wasteful spending at the VA."

He noted that former VA Secretary Jim Nicholson had awarded more than $3.8 million in bonus payments to senior officials despite their roles in crafting a flawed budget that fell $1 billion short.

"It seems irresponsible that while our veterans are waiting months for doctor's appointments, the VA is spending thousands of dollars at Las Vegas casino hotels and high-end retail shops instead of seeking out more affordable or cost-free alternatives," Mitchell said.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, who heads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said he planned to closely review the upcoming audit reports to see if spending controls needed to be tightened.

"I remain concerned that the federal government may end up paying more than necessary when employees purchase items one-by-one," said Akaka, D-Hawaii. "While I am confident that the vast majority of these charges are appropriate and legal, I urge VA to aggressively investigate allegations of fraud."

Over the years, lawmakers and watchdog groups have pointed to the potential abuse of government purchase cards, particularly at large agencies such as Defense, Homeland Security and VA, where card spending for goods ranging from defibrillators and prosthetics to Starbucks coffee has climbed from $1.7 billion in 2003 to $2.6 billion today.

In the past, purchase cards have been improperly used to pay for prostitutes, gambling activity and even breast implants.

After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the GAO estimated that 45 percent of Homeland Security purchase card spending during a six-month period was improper and included iPods, designer rain jackets and beer-making equipment. The credit-card bills are directly payable by Uncle Sam.

In 2004, the GAO faulted the VA for at least $300,000 in questionable charges, citing 3,348 movie gift certificates totaling over $30,000 that lacked documentation. Echoing similar concerns by the department's inspector general, investigators urged greater use of volume discounts and flagged several high-end retailers as questionable vendors that would require detailed paperwork to justify.

Among the other areas investigators say raise "red flags":

_Movie expenses. VA employees in 2007 made 68 charges totaling roughly $21,000 at Regal Cinemas. In light of previous questionable purchases of movie tickets, investigators say they will review the transactions case by case to see if the 2007 purchases are supported by the proper paperwork.

_Charges of $227.50 for harbor cruises in Baltimore and seven expenses totaling more than $6,603 at various Macy's locations. Such vendors were cited by the GAO in 2004 as questionable by virtue of the goods they typically provided and would need full documentation by VA employees to justify.

In response, the VA said it often pays for movies or harbor cruises as part of outpatient recreational therapy it provides for patients with schizophrenia and other problems. The VA did not immediately say whether all the required paperwork was submitted.

"I'm very concerned about frivolous, wasteful spending at the VA," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense. "With hundreds of thousands of veterans homeless, VA employees don't need to be staying at ritzy-glitzy high-priced hotels, possibly gambling with taxpayers' money."

[nChrist]

As far as I'm concerned, they had better be about the business of prosecuting to the full extent of the law. These folks need to repay every penny and spend a few years in prison.

[Soldier4Christ]

Rookie congressman pushes English as official language

A conservative congressman from Georgia says making English the official language of the United States government will help unify the country and save taxpayers money.

Rookie Congressman Paul Broun (R-Georgia) has introduced the "English the Official Language Act of 2008," which states that "no person has a right" to receive federal documents or services in languages other than English. The legislation is identical to a companion Senate measure sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma).
 
Although Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and every major Democratic presidential candidate voiced opposition to the legislation last June during debates on CNN, Broun contends there is widespread support for the bill across the country.
 
"We have a saying: 'E Pluribus Unum' -- and the Unum, unity, oneness of America should be officially the English language," argues Broun. "It's what's going to bind us together, ... and it's, I believe, critical both economically as well as societally (sic) to have English as the official language in America."
 
The Republican lawmaker cites problems that have arisen in Europe due to factions of separate cultures. "[T]hey have not amalgamated into one culture within Europe or within Great Britain," he points out. "We cannot afford to have that happen in America."
 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates it costs taxpayers yearly between $1 billion and $2 billion to provide language assistance under a Clinton-era executive order. That order created an entitlement to services provided in languages other than English.
 
Broun suggests that cost to taxpayers is probably ten times the OMB estimate.

[Shammu]

U.S. Peace Alliance Bill

There is currently a bill before the U.S. House of Representatives to establish a United States Department of Peace. This historic measure will augment our current problem-solving options, providing practical, nonviolent solutions to the problems of domestic and international conflict.

The legislation will pass from bill to law under one condition: that a wave of citizen interest rise up from the American people and make itself heard in the halls of Congress.

During the 20th Century, over 100 million people lost their lives to war -- most of whom were non-combatants. Now, at the dawn of the 21st century, the extent and current speed of nuclear proliferation makes the achievement of non-violent alternatives to war the most urgent need of the human race.

  A Department of Peace will work to:
 

    -- Provide much-needed assistance to efforts by city, county, and state governments in coordinating existing programs; as well as develop new programs based on best practices nationally

    -- Teach violence prevention and mediation to America's school children

    -- Effectively treat and dismantle gang psychology

    -- Rehabilitate the prison population

    -- Build peace-making efforts among conflicting cultures both here and abroad

    -- Support our military with complementary approaches to peace-building.

    -- Create and administer a U.S. Peace Academy, acting as a sister organization to the U.S. Military Academy.

From the growing rate of domestic incarceration to increasing problems of international violence, the United States has no more serious problem in our midst than the problem of violence itself. Prison-building is our largest urban industry, and we spend over 400 billion dollars a year on military-related expenditures. Yet there is within the workings of the U.S. government, no platform from which to seriously wage peace. We place no institutional heft behind an effort to address the causal issues of violence, diminishing its psychological force before it erupts into material conflict. From child abuse to genocide, from the murder of one to the slaughter of thousands, it is increasingly senseless to merely wait until violence has erupted before addressing the deeper well from which it springs.

The problem of violence is a many layered one, and its solution will be, as well. While no one action -- governmental or otherwise -- will provide a single solution to such an entrenched and deeply rooted problem, we must treat the problem itself as an all-systems breakdown requiring an all-systems response.

The campaign to establish a U.S. Department of Peace is only one aspect of a fundamental response to the problem of violence, but it is critical. It represents an important collective effort, as American citizens, to do everything we possibly can to save the world for our children's children.

Throughout America, there are countless peace-builders and peace-building projects. Those skilled in ameliorating the effects of violence - from conflict resolution experts to nonviolent communicators - have proven their effectiveness at treating root causes of violence. Peace is more than the absence of war; it is a positive state of being predicated on the presence of a peaceful heart. The mission of the Peace Alliance is to move this realization from the margins of our political dialogue to its rightful, central place within our national understanding. The humanitarian impulse to foster brotherhood and justice is not just an utopian ideal; it is an issue critical to our national security.

Domestically, the Department of Peace will develop policies and allocate resources to effectively reduce the levels of domestic and gang violence, child abuse, and various other forms of societal discord. Internationally, the Department will advise the President and Congress on the most sophisticated ideas and techniques regarding peace-creation among nations.

The Peace Alliance educates and inspires thousands throughout the country with the knowledge, skill and enthusiasm to become powerful citizen activists on behalf of the Department of Peace legislation. Our campaign has citizen organizers working in all 50 states. Local activists are mobilizing a mighty wave of momentum by working with their members of congress, writing editorials, doing local radio and TV interviews, organizing local talks and trainings, getting city council endorsements, visiting with Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, Military Officials, Prison Officials, Directors of Abuse Shelters, School Boards, etc. to share and discuss how a Department of Peace would benefit their community.

U.S. Peace Alliance Bill
~~~~~~~~~~~

How sad that mankind still believes there can be peace without God.

I will be e-mailing my senators and congressman asking them to vote no on this bill.

[nChrist]

Hello DreamWeaver,

Brother, you've already hit the nail on the head:  THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT GOD!

The problems of mankind started with the original sin of Adam and Eve. SIN is still the root of all problems for mankind, and JESUS CHRIST is the only cure! ONLY JESUS CHRIST can rescue us from the curse of sin and death.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

[HisDaughter]

Rookie congressman pushes English as official language

A conservative congressman from Georgia says making English the official language of the United States government will help unify the country and save taxpayers money.

Rookie Congressman Paul Broun (R-Georgia) has introduced the "English the Official Language Act of 2008," which states that "no person has a right" to receive federal documents or services in languages other than English. The legislation is identical to a companion Senate measure sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma).
 
Although Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and every major Democratic presidential candidate voiced opposition to the legislation last June during debates on CNN, Broun contends there is widespread support for the bill across the country.
 
"We have a saying: 'E Pluribus Unum' -- and the Unum, unity, oneness of America should be officially the English language," argues Broun. "It's what's going to bind us together, ... and it's, I believe, critical both economically as well as societally (sic) to have English as the official language in America."
 
The Republican lawmaker cites problems that have arisen in Europe due to factions of separate cultures. "[T]hey have not amalgamated into one culture within Europe or within Great Britain," he points out. "We cannot afford to have that happen in America."
 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates it costs taxpayers yearly between $1 billion and $2 billion to provide language assistance under a Clinton-era executive order. That order created an entitlement to services provided in languages other than English.
 
Broun suggests that cost to taxpayers is probably ten times the OMB estimate.

I like this guy!  I just hope they don't chew him up and spit him out before he has a chance to do us some good.

[HisDaughter]

    -- Teach mediation to America's school children

   

I really don't like the sound of this.  It reminds of something out of a Frank Peretti book.

[Soldier4Christ]

Massachusetts suffering fallout from universal healthcare program

A leading healthcare reform expert says she's not surprised that the new universal healthcare program in Massachusetts brokered by former Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Ted Kennedy is running several hundred million dollars over budget.

Associated Press reports costs are soaring for the new healthcare law in Massachusetts.  Bay State lawmakers are considering a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for the larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans. Under the law, anyone making less than the federal poverty level is eligible for free care. Those making up to three times the poverty level can get subsidized plans.
 
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Virginia-based Galen Institute, says although the number of insured residents has risen by nearly 350,000 since Mitt Romney signed the law two years ago, virtually all of it is subsidized by the taxpayer.

"When you make health insurance virtually free, people will sign up -- but then somebody has to pay the bill," Turner explains. "And not only are they looking at new taxes [to pay that bill], but they're also trying to put more and more clamps on prices to try to keep the prices down ...." But as most people know, she adds, "price controls don't work."
 
The president of the Galen Institute contends the state practiced bad budgeting. "If they expected to get to universal coverage, they should have assumed that all the people who are going to get free or nearly free care would sign up," she argues. "So something's not connecting here.
 
"I think it shows the difficulty of starting out with a goal for universal coverage without first addressing the important issue of cost," she continues, posing questions that should have been addressed up front. "Why does healthcare [and] why does health insurance cost so much? What can we do about that? And then expand coverage to more affordable coverage rather than trying to clamp a lid on the current system, as Massachusetts did."
 
Turner points out while more Massachusetts residents now may have an insurance card, they also have a bigger tax burden as a result of the state's new universal healthcare law -- and on top of that, they do not have better access to a doctor. "[E]ven people who have private insurance [and] are paying their premiums are finding it increasingly difficult to find doctors who will see them," she notes.
 
Some Bay State residents, Turner explains, are being put on waiting lists of 6-8 weeks to just get a physical because there are not enough primary-care doctors see all the people who now have insurance.
 
Turner says it is unfortunate that when there is a bigger role for government in the health sector -- as there is now in Massachusetts -- it opens the doors for bureaucracy to increase price, create mandates, and ultimately take away individuals' freedom to find the kind of health insurance that would better suit them.

[Brother Jerry]

Yep...caught the tailend of some report on the news the other day...talking about Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and others.  They say the average cost per person is in excess of $750 per person per month.  And those are for smaller countries where the socialized medicine is actually working....

But I could not afford to pay $750 for myself, let alone for each other person in my family. 

And that is the short sightedness of these people who try and use these countries as examples....they fail to see how much it really does cost them.  It is not "free", each of these countries it is mandatory to pay the "tax" for medicine.  And in order to have a universal HC system would cost each person (rich or poor) a certain amount each month.  And in order to maintain the level of excellence we experience in health care here in the U.S. you can be the price tag would be about $1,000 per person per month.  And that would simply destroy many homes.

[Soldier4Christ]

Yep, even at $1,000 per month your figures are still quite moderate. According to figures given by proponents of universal health care the overall cost could reach as much as 69 Billion per year over what the current health care programs cost. U.S. population is currently just a little under 304 million. With a good sized number of those having zero taxable income it would reduce that population number even more. Even at the 304 mil number the math on this is outrageous.

[nChrist]

HILLARYCARE and anything like it is insane and won't work.

It boils down to something very simple for many with lower incomes who will be hit the worse: if you must choose between food and shelter or healthcare, you will choose the food and shelter. If someone says they will put you in jail for failure to pay for their mandatory healthcare, you'll choose jail and get the food, shelter, and healthcare free. It will actually be a choice of survival or not surviving for many, and we should know what the choice will be. My wife and I pay $500 a month for private healthcare plans, and this is ALL we can afford. The government can't compete with what we get for $250 each per month. We can't, so we won't pay much more than this and still eat - so I guess they can whistle "Dixie" if they pass something like this. We will keep our private coverage. So far, nobody has figured out a way to get blood out of a turnip, but maybe Hillary knows something we don't. (Small Print:  I don't think so.)

[Soldier4Christ]

Despite admission, latest Hill scandal 'still a whodunit'
Rogue $1- million entry popped up in spending bill after vote, before sent to president

Even as more information leaks out about the latest Congressional scandal, Congress is struggling to decide how – or whether – to investigate itself.

The crux of the scandal, known as "Coconut Road," is simple: When Congress passes a law, its wording is not supposed to change before it goes to the president for his signature.

But in 2005, a rogue entry popped up in a spending bill after the House and Senate had already voted on it, but before it landed on President Bush's desk.

The entry directed $10 million to Florida authorities to build a highway interchange they didn't want, but which would open up thousands of acres to be developed. That land was owned by a major contributor to Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.

Pursued by bloggers and a watchdog group, the source of the tiny provision – known as "Coconut Road" – has mushroomed into a full-blown scandal. The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the matter, while Congress is debating how (and whether) to investigate how anyone could manage to pull such a fast one.

For months, no one has come forward to take credit.  But this morning, unnamed members of Young's staff are quoted in the Washington Post saying that yes, unnamed committee aides for Young "corrected" the law after it had been passed by Congress.  Young's office insisted that campaign donations were not the motive to make the change.

The earmarked money was always supposed to be for the interchange, but had been written as generic highway improvements, Young's spokeswoman said.  So they changed it.

Mystery solved? Hardly, says Keith Ashdown, a spending watchdog whose group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, first investigated the Coconut Road earmark and took the rare step of asking the House Ethics Committee for an investigation – six months ago.

For one thing, the role of another Florida congressman, Republican Connie Mack, is unclear. Mack "disavowed any association with the earmark request," the Post reported Wednesday - yet he authored a letter at the time expressing support for the controversial interchange. He has since pushed to reverse the earmark.

"This is still a case of whodunit," said Ashdown.  The identities of those involved are still unknown, he said, as well as those of anyone who may have directed the change – nor is it public knowledge what other staffers may have known about the illicit tweak.

"Other staff were involved," Ashdown said Wednesday. "We believe they didn’t intend to do wrong, but at best they were asleep at the switch. . . [but] they let this happen."

[HisDaughter]

Despite admission, latest Hill scandal 'still a whodunit'
Rogue $1- million entry popped up in spending bill after vote, before sent to president

Even as more information leaks out about the latest Congressional scandal, Congress is struggling to decide how – or whether – to investigate itself.

That's a real "Knee-Slapper".

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. to provide nuke fuel to Arab states
Iran triggering proliferation concerns in Middle East

The Bush administration quietly signed an agreement to supply the United Arab Emirates with nuclear fuel and technology amid concerns Iran's continued enrichment of uranium will spur nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The decision to go ahead with the UAE nuclear program also follows Treasury Department talks with UAE Sovereign Wealth Funds, positioning the federation of seven Gulf states to make further investments in U.S. financial institutions this year.

Wall Street financial analysts remain concerned that U.S. banks and securities firms will need additional capital infusions later this year as their asset bases continue to erode in the unfolding crisis in mortgage-backed securities.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdulla bin Zayed Al-Nahyan signed a memorandum of understanding Monday in which the U.S. agreed to support the UAE in the development of domestic nuclear technology for generating energy.

The UAE's Nuclear Energy Program Implementation Organization set the stage Sunday for the agreement with the State Department by issuing a white paper recommending the UAE forgo the domestic enrichment of uranium in favor of importing nuclear fuel from other nations, including the U.S.

In issuing the white paper, UAE Foreign Minister Sheik bin Zayed al-Nahayan emphasized the UAE created the Nuclear Energy Program Implementation Organization to develop the nation's peaceful nuclear energy program, complying with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency requirements.

The State Department emphasized the agreement falls under the principles spelled out in the Joint Declaration on Nuclear Energy and Nonproliferation, issued by President Bush and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin July 2, 2007.

The agreement exemplifies a growing interest in nuclear technology by Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia, in response to Iran's decision to continue enriching uranium, despite a U.S.-led move to intensify U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

Iran has consistently rejected a Russian proposal backed by the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Commission to supply Russian-enriched uranium in exchange for Tehran agreeing to stop its enrichment program.

Earlier this month, Iran reportedly begun installing 6,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

Iran now is using advanced IR-2 centrifuges that can enrich uranium at approximately double the rate of the older model P-1 centrifuges.

WND previously reported Arab nations are preparing to invest some $1.7 trillion accumulated in Sovereign Wealth Funds – greatly augmented by windfall profits from this year's oil-price spike – into U.S. companies, including banks and brokerage firms.

WND has reported Dubai and Abu Dhabi, two of the largest United Arab Emirate states, have been in quiet discussions with the U.S. Treasury, offering reassurances that their investments in U.S. banks and security firms would not impose restrictions usually dictated by Islamic law.

In September 2007, Dubai acquired 19.9 percent of the NASDAQ in New York, placing the Arab government in an ownership position of the second largest stock market exchange in the U.S.

In January, the Abu Dhabi government invested $7.5 billion in Citibank for a 4.9 percent provision plus a preferred coupon return of 11 percent, providing Citibank badly needed capital to make up for losses in bank assets suffered as Citibank-held mortgage-backed securities lost value.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Jihadist' booted from government lexicon

 Don't call them jihadists any more.

And don't call al-Qaida a movement.

The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.

Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.

The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.

U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."

"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world," the report says.

Language is critical in the war on terror, says another document, an internal "official use only" memorandum circulating through Washington entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication."

The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all U.S. embassies, officials said.

"It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on terrorism.

"Don't take the bait," it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. "We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim world."

"Don't compromise our credibility" by using words and phrases that may ascribe benign motives to terrorists.

Some other specifics:

_ "Never use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' in conversation to describe the terrorists. ... Calling our enemies 'jihadis' and their movement a global 'jihad' unintentionally legitimizes their actions."

_ "Use the terms 'violent extremist' or 'terrorist.' Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy."

_ On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: "We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don't insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' which are considered offensive by many Muslims."

The memo says the advice is not binding and does not apply to official policy papers but should be used as a guide for conversations with Muslims and media.

At least at the top level, it appears to have made an impact. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who once frequently referred to "jihad" in her public remarks, does not appear to have used the word, except when talking about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.

The memo mirrors advice distributed to British and European Union diplomats last year to better explain the war on terrorism to Muslim communities there.

It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.

Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and obtained by AP this week, counseled "caution in using terms such as, 'jihadist,' 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose descriptions."

"We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam," the report said, adding that bin Laden and his adherents fear "irrelevance" more than anything else.

"We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some," it said.