We all deserve better leadership than what we're getting

I agree with John J. Lipchik's letter "Today's Army Has It Backward Regarding Abu Ghraib" (Jan. 21). My husband and I are former U.S. Army officers. We have witnessed abuses of power and lack of accountability among the officer ranks, from outright lying and rewarding incompetence, to thinly veiled threats of deployment unless the junior officer fell into line.

It is no surprise that the military higher-ups are allowing one junior enlisted soldier to shoulder the blame for all the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am convinced that the enlisted soldiers involved in this outrage were given orders from officers and intelligence officials, and that these orders were known up the chain to our secretary of defense, and possibly the president himself.

Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. got the punishment he deserved for obeying unlawful orders, but I am still waiting to see his commanders punished. Instead, I'm sure they have been given promotions and commendations (much like our defense secretary).

Mr. Lipchik is wrong on one account. Corporal and specialist are both E-4s, which are closer to the top of the junior enlisted ranks. E-4s are an indispensible part of the Army, the young medics who served this tired Army doc with boundless energy and enthusiasm.

God bless you, young soldiers. This is one officer who was proud to serve you and to serve with you. I pray you all return home safely. You deserve better leadership than this. We all do.

VERONICA SANTEE, M.D.
West View

---

Training covers this

John J. Lipchik's letter about Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr.'s court martial overreached reported facts by saying he is being made a "scapegoat" ("Today's Army Has It Backward Regarding Abu Ghraib," Jan. 21).

Asserting that Spc. Graner could not commit an illegal act without an order because he wasn't "even a corporal" fails by misunderstanding his rank and the expectations of all soldiers regarding illegal orders.

"Corporal" is used in combat arms branches (infantry, armor) because of the symbolic and functional leadership required by soldiers of that rank within a squad; it begins the leadership role of an enlisted service member.

In other branches that rank is expressed as "specialist" because they receive specific technical training beyond basic soldier skills. They are proficient in both when qualified, as Spc. Graner is for the military police. Spc. Graner, with civilian and military training, could recognize unacceptable detainee actions.

The military expects each soldier to appropriately handle captured personnel and know how to respond to illegal orders regarding them. There is no rebuttal to that -- only failure to do it. Spc. Graner's court martial validates that he did not perform as expected or trained. The court did not find facts that eliminated or limited his guilt although they may have affected the severity of his punishment.

Military investigations are ongoing in Spc. Graner's chain of command, including those Mr. Lipchik believes are "the truly responsible parties." It will become clear then whether or not this was an unsupervised deviance of the few.

ANDREW CHEATHAM
Highland Park

---

More die, for what?

So, 37 American kids were killed Wednesday in Bush's war. I didn't say our war, or America's war -- I said Bush's war, and I mean it. This so-called strong resolute leader is nothing but a coward when it comes to himself serving, but he is perfectly willing to destroy the lives of our finest young people for his personal revenge motives.

As Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke maintained in their books, he was after Saddam Hussein even before 9/11. I blame Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest of their neo-con gang for this war, not the CIA. The CIA's arm was twisted -- until it gave the answer the Bushies wanted. For shame -- their crime is against our own country.

GEORGE MATUS
Munhall

---

The same right

In the Jan. 19 Post-Gazette I read an op-ed piece about how many times President Bush mentioned God in his various speeches ("God Talk at the Inaugural"). The writers went on to compare him with many other presidents. How ludicrous can you get in a commentary?

I just don't understand what the big deal is. Does not our president have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as any other citizen? The president is a man of faith and as such God is a very central part of who he is as a human being. As such, of course, he is going to mention God many times because of his belief that ultimately God is in control of this country, and as a citizen of this country he has every right to do so.

I do believe in this country he is afforded the right of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

So my suggestion is if you do not like the mention of God in presidential speeches you have the right not to listen, You, however, do not have the right to take away our president's right to freedom of speech.

TONY MILLIRON
Ross

---

Is that so, Mr. Bush?

"From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and Earth." -- G.W. Bush's Inaugural Address, Jan. 20.

I hate to be critical but this man has missed the three-fifths rule, Dred Scott, the Civil War, the women's suffrage movement, Birmingham in the '60s, etc. Surely someone in the "left-wing media" somewhere or maybe even Condi Rice might notice.

WILLIAM SMITH
Indiana, Pa.

---

No show of freedom

The federal government threw a parade for the Secret Service on Jan. 20. I understand President Bush also paraded, but who knew?

If this kind of security is really necessary, I believe the time has come to rethink Inauguration Day. To my eyes, this parade did not have the look of a celebration in the land of the free. It was stifling, and a waste of gas.

Limit the big, costly celebrations to the inauguration of new presidents. Fiscally responsible incumbents of either party should happily accept a scaled-down kickoff to their second terms.

NITA CULLISON
Scott

---

Stifling solutions

The separation of church and state and the relationship between private inspiration and public debate are the cornerstones of public discourse in this country.

In a secular nation, when a problem arises that requires a public solution, peoples of all religions, ethnicities, etc., bring suggestions for possible solutions to the public square inspired in some way by their life experience. Each idea in this large pool of possible solutions from multiple perspectives is debated, tested and analyzed. The solution that is most effective in solving the problem is implemented.

In George Bush and Rick Santorum's evangelical America, this system has been destroyed. In their world, as we have seen time and again, there is no public debate necessary because whichever solution is closest to their interpretation of Christianity's answer must be the "best" one by definition. To them, the messenger is more important than the message.

This narrow approach inevitably produces poor, limited "solutions" that we are all forced to accept on "faith." Over time, Christianity's teachings have inspired effective solutions to many public problems including social justice and equality, but they have also brought Roman numerals and theories suggesting that the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

Thankfully, other traditions have stepped in giving us Arabic numbers and independent, fact-seeking science. But how will we effectively solve the problems of tomorrow with a narrow-minded president and narrow-minded senators like Rick Santorum? Well, at least we can remove one of them from office in 2006.

MARK J. SENEDIAK
Mt. Lebanon

---

Condi Rice is no Stepford wife

Rob Rogers' Jan. 23 cartoon portraying Condoleezza Rice as a Stepford wife is offensive. Let's compare the lifetime achievements of Mr. Rogers and Dr. Rice.

Rob Rogers draws pictures. Dr. Rice rose from pove rty to become a world-renowned and widely published scholar of international affairs and provost of Stanford University before entering government service. I wonder what it is that would embolden Mr. Rogers to defame the integrity of a person of such high achievement. Is it her gender? Her race? Her association with George W. Bush, the root of all that is evil in Mr. Rogers' world?

Rob Rogers' cartoons have the intellectual seriousness of graffiti scrawled on a bathroom wall. On the sports pages, they are merely stupid and unfunny. On the editorial page, they are a waste of space that could be filled with something of substance.

WILLIAM POLLAK
Point Breeze