- “Rustom Ghazaleh acted as if he were the absolute ruler in Lebanon. One day he insulted Rafik Hariri, Nabih Berri, and Walid Jumblatt. I said to the president, why does he stay in Lebanon? He is behaving unreasonably. I told him, Rustom Ghazaleh took $35 million from the City Bank and the file they certainly presented to you (...) You are the commander of the army and your officer who committed these atrocities. How do you keep him? He replied that Ghazi Kanaan was the one who nominated him. After the assassination of Hariri, I met with the president on February 28 and told him, “This criminal, bring him and cut his neck.. He is the one who created this situation in Lebanon.” He said, “In any case, there are formations coming and we will change it, but he did not change it.”
- “I told the president to form an investigation committee and bring the officers who had done wrong in Lebanon and transfer them to a field court and judge them so that they would bear responsibility for the mistakes. Why should the state bear it? (…) Why protect Rustum Ghazala when everyone knows the sins of this man?”
- “Incitement against Hariri by Lebanese parties, including Lahoud and Jamil al-Sayyid (…) There was planning by some Lebanese parties to drag Syria into what it fell into (…) The instigators (in Syria) are from the circle surrounding the President of the Republic.”
- “(Ahmed) Abu Adass’s hypothesis was stupidity. The operation required a thousand kilograms (of explosives). Could Abu Adass bring this type of explosives? If he was in the car, where is his body and his body parts? I do not think there is any sane person who would accept it being said that Abu "Lents behind the crime"
- “I do not want to be accused. This issue requires high technology, a working oversight body of no less than 20 people, and management of this major operation (…) Who can? Which organization, anyone, can come up with a thousand kilograms of explosives? (…) This is a large operation with a device behind it. What the investigation should find
- “I do not want to be accused. There is an investigation committee that I personally have confidence in, and all parties in Lebanon have confidence in the committee and what comes out of it. Then we can say this device or that. This process can only be carried out by a strong device that has great capabilities.”
- “The campaign against Hariri is being carried out by some of our friends. Suleiman Franjieh says Hariri is a foreign project. Omar Karami: Hariri and Jumblatt are passing an American project (…) This group was waging a poisonous campaign against Hariri.”
- Mehlis’s report is “technical. It means that he gave a summary of what he had and he cannot give everything he has because that would harm the integrity of the investigation. Mehlis is a professional and well-known judge and his report is good. He avoided politicizing the investigation even though the crime is political (…) Those who politicized the investigation are the suspects.”
- “It is too early to say this or that team, but the political campaign directed against Hariri created a crisis among the Lebanese, and we must all wait for the investigation. Were there good relations between the Syrian leadership and Hariri? This question may shed light on the problem between the man and the Syrian leadership.”
- “In the leadership, there was talk about Resolution 1595, and there was a campaign against Prime Minister Hariri, saying that he was doing an irresponsible act in Lebanon, which was to gather his sect, and this was against Syria. I called the president (and asked him) why the leadership was talking, because this talk would spread (…) Why is Hariri dangerous if it gathered? His sect is around him, and this is not the case for Hassan Nasrallah or Nabih Berri.”
- “ After a few days, I asked Mohsen Dalloul to inform Abu Bahaa (Hariri) to leave Lebanon because his situation was complicated in Syria. This happened months before his assassination. It never occurred to me for a moment that Syria would assassinate Hariri at all.”
- “This climate created certain impressions among people. What proves, reinforces, or denies this climate is the results of the investigation.”