Powell referred to Iraqis, not Saddam

Columnist Richard Cohen tries to hang Colin Powell out to dry by using his "exact" words to the United Nations against him ("There's no need to exaggerate," Feb. 16). I think Cohen should reread the quote he used.

Cohen suggests that Secretary Powell diminished his credibility by presenting the recent audiotape of Osama bin Laden, claiming solidarity with Iraq as hard evidence of a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Later, in the same tape, bin Laden speaks disparagingly of Saddam. This seeming contradiction has those in the anti-Bush camp, including Cohen, literally stumbling over their own assumptions.

The problem is that the direct quote Cohen used says nothing about bin Laden and Saddam in cahoots. Of the tape, Secretary Powell said (citing Cohen): "Once again, he (bin Laden) speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq." I read the people of Iraq. A partnership with Iraq. Not Saddam Hussein or his Baath Party regime.

At worst, Powell may be accused of allowing members of his audience to draw their own conclusions. Cohen should be more careful about whom he says may be losing credibility.

- Tom Vangeloff, Kenwood

Police shouldn't be faulted for heroism

The latest police shooting of an African-American man has again brought out the timeworn inferences that the policeman did something wrong.

Not that policemen never do anything wrong, because sometimes they do, but the circumstances in this case do not seem to warrant criticism.

What would you do when struggling with a burglar who is hitting you with a nightstick and might kill you with it, or with your gun, if he knocks you silly and gets hold of it?

Policemen who must face such dangers every day in the extremely dangerous environments of the inner cities are indeed heroes. They put their lives on the line for you and me. Would your friends risk life and limb to protect you? Would your family members do this?

- William Spears, Union Township

Democrats, not GOP, lacking in diversity

The front-page article in Sunday's Enquirer decrying the lack of diversity in the state legislature is another confirmation of the fact that Democrats just don't get it ("GOP rules with no minorities, few women," Feb. 16). Their party is the one that lacks diversity, not the Republicans. If they permitted diversity of beliefs on issues such as abortion, taxes and affirmative action, perhaps they would be able to attract more voters.

The reason that Democrats are outnumbered in the Legislature is because more people vote for Republicans and Republican ideas. As long as African Americans are wed to the Democratic Party in this country, they will never make big electoral gains. This is not because of their skin color, but because of their adherence to Democratic ideology.

- Gary Bryson, Sharonville

Consider the message, rather than the race

Why is it considered a problem when elected conservatives defend the views of the people who elected them? Why is it considered a return to "the Dark Ages" simply because a white man gets elected?

Perhaps instead of spending so much time and energy whining about white men holding elected office, people like reporter Debra Jasper should look into the message of these white men. Perhaps if people who seem to need to define everything in terms of race, would look more at the content of the message rather than the color of the messenger's skin.

- Steve Dasenbrock, Anderson Township

Legislature split is socioeconomic

I was depressed after reading the article ("GOP rules with no minorities, few women," Feb. 16). What I found so sad was not that the state is dominated by Republicans; it was the tacit, but obvious, relationship drawn between the two central article themes of minorities versus white representation, and urban versus rural/suburban.

I've noticed these two themes are becoming more frequently intertwined in discussions: light rail and the consequent ability to be more cheaply mobile, urban-concentrated versus suburban-dispersed housing for the poor, school funding and choice and how much "sprawl" should be encouraged or tolerated. We are tearing apart at the socioeconomic and geographic seams. Our Republican legislative majority thinks that is a good thing - or at least expedient; they seem to be pulling the hardest.

- James Uber, Prospect Hill