Al Sharpton defends try at diplomacy

Story Tools

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Reverend Al Sharpton of the National Action Network says members of the clergy in the United States and in Iraq should try to help avoid a war. For his part, the Rev. Sharpton shared his vision with Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations on Monday in New York.

The Rev. Sharpton joined "Crossfire" hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson to discuss his plans for solving the crisis in Iraq.

CARLSON: OK. Reverend Al Sharpton, you were criticized by a number of people, including "The New York Times" on Monday for meeting with a representative of the Iraqi government on Veterans Day. This is a country we're likely going to war with. Do you regret the symbolism of meeting with an enemy on Veterans Day?

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, a columnist, not "The New York Times," took that view. And I thought it was frankly a very ridiculous view. I think the thing you should do on Veterans Day is to make sure that those that serve our armed forces are not unnecessarily endangered.

I have members of my family that are veterans. My wife is a veteran. So I think that the writer made a very reckless notion ... People that seek peace against veterans, in fact, they are for veterans, and want to see people in the armed service live to be veterans and not come home in body bags unnecessarily.

BEGALA: Reverend Sharpton, with all due respect to your manifest diplomatic skills, don't you think Colin Powell is a little better equipped to handle these things? And have you gotten any feedback from the State Department or anybody else in a position of authority after your meeting?

SHARPTON: Well, to handle what things? We talked about clergy meeting with clergy to see if we could have somewhere a universal appeal for peace. I don't think Mr. Powell is a clergyman. We did not say we were going there to interfere in any way with the negotiations between the United States and anywhere else. I think that clearly ...

CARLSON: The Iraqi ambassador is not a clergyman either, is he?

SHARPTON: No, but the Iraqi ambassador can facilitate a meeting with Iraqi clergypeople, just as we've been in touch with the State Department. And the purpose of the meeting there was only to try to facilitate somewhere a meeting with Iraqi clergy. That was all.

Clearly, if we were talking beyond that, we would, one, probably be breaking the law, and secondly, undercutting whatever it is someone was trying to do at the State Department. That was not even the announced purpose. The announced purpose was to have a clergy dialogue around peace.

If we are in the time that people are celebrating holy holidays -- if you practice Islam, it's Ramadan; we're approaching Thanksgiving and Christmas for Christians -- wouldn't it be out of the ordinary for men and women that are practicing their religion to not try and strive for some level of common ground and some way of trying to create a climate for peace that could help diplomats and help negotiators?

Shouldn't we try to stop the shedding of innocent blood? Even if we fail, I don't see how you don't attempt to try, if you claim to be people that believe in God.

CARLSON: Well, here's the problem, though. You speak for yourself. You don't speak for the United States government, obviously. And you're allowed to do that because this is a free country.

But members of the so-called clergy in Iraq, by definition, almost, are speaking for the Iraqi government because, of course, they don't have freedom of speech or of religion in Iraq. So isn't it kind of an unequal relationship, this so-called meeting between clergy?

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, you don't know who we may end up meeting with, because we don't know. And we're told by members of the Bush administration that there are opposition forces in Iraq. So I don't know who we might talk to.

But let me give you the example, Tucker. Just suppose that Saddam Hussein does come back Friday and say, yes, I agree to weapons inspections. And they say, well, we want to make sure there are no delays. Maybe a delay is something that is human error, or accident of a car while the team is driving through. Anything trivial.

If you have people that are talking, you can try. Maybe our appeal would be to the Security Council, as they monitor this if it goes into the 30-day phase. Again, let us not predict or prejudge where it can go, if at all. We're not interfering with what the government is doing.

What we are saying (is) that there must be a point where moral leaders say, "Wait a minute, this is not just about Saddam Hussein or George Bush, this is about people." And if we could spare human life -- if there's a bomb dropped on Iraq, Saddam Hussein is not the only one that will die. Iraqi children will die. Women will die. American troops can die. That's what those that represent and minister the people try and avoid from happening if it is possible to do that.

Story Tools


Panel: Spy agencies in dark about threats

• White House calls pope inspiration for millions
• Lott delays vote on base closing nominee
• Former Clinton adviser Berger to plead guilty


CNN/Money: Security alert issued for 40 million credit cards

• Bin Laden deputy sends message
• U.S. House votes to keep U.N. dues
• Iran poll to go to run-off