UPI’s Shaun Waterman reports today that congressional conservatives are riled up over new government guidelines shunning the use of terms like “jihadist” and “Islamo-fascism” to describe terrorists. On Friday, every Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted for a failed amendment to ban “the use of federal cash to produce documents like the terminology guidelines.”

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), who authored the amendment, attacked the guidelines as “McCarthyism in reverse“:

Mr. Hoekstra called it “sad that as we approach the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are still debating how to define our enemy.”

His amendment aimed to end what he called “McCarthyism in reverse” and “speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America.”

Hoekstra is missing the point when he lashes out at the guidelines as part of a debate over “how to define our enemy.” Even if terms like “jihad” are used accurately, the report concludes that “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.”

“A senior administration official” who spoke to UPI disagreed with the House GOP’s position, claiming “that President Bush had been ‘absolutely at the forefront’ of promoting and using the kind of language the guidelines recommend.” In order to support this claim, Waterman cited research by Duke University’s David Schanzer:

A search of the president’s speeches and other public comments on the White House Web site conducted by David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University in North Carolina, found that Mr. Bush — who has repeatedly spoken about America’s enemies — has used the term “Islamic terrorist” only once since the beginning of 2007.

Though President Bush appears to have made some effort, “Islamic terrorist” is not the only term whose use the guidelines caution against. As ThinkProgress has noted, President Bush referred to terrorists as “jihadists,” which is also seen as problematic by his administration, as recently as April 29.

Last month, the Pentagon released an extensive document dump with details on its military analyst propaganda program. TPM Muckraker notes that in a 2006 e-mail, someone (with a redacted name) e-mailed Pentagon officials stating that Jed Babbin, a participant in the analyst program, would be guest hosting for right-wing radio talker Michael Medved. Babbin requested an interview with Gen. George Casey, then top commander in Iraq. Pitching the request to interview Casey to the Pentagon officials, the e-mailer said: “this would be a softball interview and the show is 8th or 9th in the nation.” Allison Barber, a Public Affairs official at the Pentagon, responded:

Thanks for sending this.

Just fyi, probably wouldn’t put “softball” interview in writing. If that got out it would compromise jed and general casey.

The e-mailer wrote back: “check, check.”

Today, the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq and corruption in the Iraqi government. Two former State Department employees testified, including Judge Arthur Brennan, the former director of the Office of Accountability and Transparency (OAT) in Iraq. He said that his office’s work “was ignored and demeaned by the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the government of Iraq.”

He also revealed the State Department completely altered a report he sent to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) that criticized an Iraqi watchdog agency as being a “disaster”:

MCCASKILL: And your testimony — I want to make sure that you have said the Department of State has negligently, recklessly and intentionally misled Congress, the American people and the people of Iraq. And you stand by that testimony, Judge?

BRENNAN: I stand by that testimony.

MCCASKILL: And so, what we’re learning today is that SIGIR, the information we’re getting from SIGIR is not, in fact, always factual, that sometimes it is being spun by Ambassador Crocker and that it is your testimony today that Ambassador Crocker knows the level of corruption in the Iraqi government and has failed to be honest with the American people about it.

BRENNAN: If he doesn’t know, then he’s negligent. If he does know, then he’s intentionally misleading Congress and the American public.

Watch it:

According to Brennan, when the House Oversight Committee requested a copy of OAT’s report on Iraqi corruption last fall, the State Department “then retroactively classified the report in an effort to prevent it from being made a subject of public knowledge and discussion.” The department also ordered all State personnel not to testify at the House committee hearing examining corruption in Iraq.

James Mattil, who worked with Brennan, agreed with Brennan’s assessment, blaming the Bush administration for failing to demand greater action on corruption: “It seems reasonable to conclude that the reasons are either, gross incompetence, willful negligence or political intent on the part of the Bush administration and more specifically, the Department of State,” he said.

A new Gallup poll shows that President Bush is so unpopular that he will do more damage to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) chances of being elected president than will Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):

Man, Barack Obama’s really got it coming and going. First John McCain runs around the country talking about how much Hamas loves Obama, now Edward Luttwak says Islam requires Obama’s murder for the crime of apostasy. I’m no expert on Islamic law, but if this were any kind of real issue, shouldn’t The New York Times be able to locate an actual Muslim who sees things this way?

President Bush has issued an “unprecedented number” of signing statements during his tenure. Today, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced “the Presidential Signing Statements Act” in an effort to provide some oversight of these practices. “To enable a more complete public understanding of our nation’s laws, the U.S. Congress should also be able to call for the executive’s explanation of the meaning and justification for a presidential signing statement,” Jones said. The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing notes that Jones’s bill “might provide House Democrats with nice fodder for more public excoriation of the Bush administration’s alleged hubris and secrecy.”