IM: I don't think we have a misconception. I believe, personally at least, that we do understand the following: if it's even admitted here in Washington, they are so biased in their approach to the Middle East. They won't even consider an even-handed approach. It's not the misconception. It's the belief.
In Syria, Syrians admire the United States. They admire American values. They admire the American system. They love the American people. They watch American movies. They would love to eat American food.
But, they loathe American policies as they apply to the Middle East. Those policies are even in contradiction to the American laws themselves. America is against occupation throughout the world. Yet, Israel is occupying our territory and is supported by America. America advocates freedom -- dignity for every country in the world except for the Palestinians. For fifty years, people are suffering. Humiliated with occupation and this is ok with America. Except for some verbal condemnation. Nothing more.
So, I wouldn't call it a misconception. I can't see where there is a misconception. In general, Syria is really admired, highly regarded. Sorry, America is highly regarded in Syria -- especially with its values. But, its policies as they are applied, not as they are misconceived, are terribly regarded.
DG: You mention, that the U.S. policy approach to the Middle East is contradictory. What changes, I know this could be an hour-long discussion. But briefly, what changes do you think that the U.S. policy should be towards the Middle East?
IM: We only want -- we're not asking for something that is magical or anything. We just want the United States to stick to its public policies. What the United States believes in, we are happy with. If it applies it even-handedly. This is the only thing we want and it's amazing.
We do not want to see a drastic change in any American value or declared policy. It is the way that they apply their policy is incredible. This what annoys us in the Middle East. This is a fundamental question. It's amazing. What we want to see is the United States advocating, I'll give you some examples, the policies advocating all the Arab states.
I will give you one example and you will understand the whole issue. Colin Powell has officially declared, and I'm quoting him, "It is our declared policy to see the Middle East completely free from weapons of mass destruction." This is the American policy.
We, Syria a small country, went to the United Nations Security Council. We submitted a draft resolution demanding to declare the Middle East absolutely free of weapons of mass destruction.
Who opposes this view? Who -- the United States. Incredible! It's amazing! We are quoting your statement. Your declared policy. You are contradicting yourself. But, they don't care. You know why? Because this resolution will damage Israel. End of the matter. They are protecting Israel, regardless of declared policies of the United States.
So it's unimaginable. Probably people here don't understand this. A country like Syria would love to see U.S. policies applied in the Middle East. We would love to see this.
DG: I know that you talked about Israel so I would like to bring up... can you explain, what happened in the events leading up to the unfortunate Israeli attack on Syrian land last month?
IM: There is a simple explanation. Syria has nothing to do [with causing the event] whatsoever. Absolutely nothing with the violence in the occupied territories. The violence in the occupied territories is caused only be one thing. Don't believe anything else that you are told by anyone else. It's caused by occupation.
A country, people that have been humiliated for fifty years and they are still being humiliated today. They are living in intolerable conditions. Even the American government itself admits this. The Palestinians are living in intolerable conditions and undignified lives. This violence, however, regrettable it is, the action of such a heavy-handed occupation. So the Policies of Sharon are responsible for the violence in the Middle East. Not anything that Syria has to do with.
However, Sharon who is embarrassed in front of his people is trying to divert attention. Instead of addressing the issue -- Why are Palestinians and Israelis being killed on a daily basis? Damascus has nothing, whatsoever, to do with this. The occupation has everything to this. Everything -- 100 percent.
It's not our problem. We did not occupy the West Bank. We do not demolish their houses. We are not building a wall today inside their occupied land. We do not block their streets. The reaction, however you might condemn it, I can understand how condemnable how the actions are. These are the reactions of the ongoing occupation of a nation -- one nation. Determining and controlling the destiny of another nation. That's not humane. This is a breach of the international Human Rights charter of everything. Every value that is defended in the United States here.
So what happened is the following: Ariel Sharon promised the Israeli people that if they elect him he would use extreme force to pressurize the Palestinians to surrender so that they would succumb. So that the Israelis could enjoy peace and security. That has happened and this is a historic fact. This not just an opinion. More Israelis have been killed since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel as compared to any other Prime Minister in the history of Israel. That's not to mention any other of the thousands of Palestinians killed since he became Prime Minister.
What I'm trying to say is, the events that lead to this raid on Syria are events that had everything to do with Sharonian policies in the occupied territories. Because he was cornered in front of his people, he looked for an exit. He claimed, 'look Syria is responsible. Let's attack Syria.'
Two days ago, four prominent ex-leaders of the Israeli security went public and said that the policies of the Israeli government are only leading to hatred and more and more violence. Enough is enough. Those are Israeli prominent security leaders.
So we in Syria, we consider their attack was just a theatrical fireworks plan to divert attention for the reality on the ground -- which is a terrible reality on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
DG: So what was bombed in Syria?
IM: A vacant camp. Nobody was killed, nobody was there. Don't believe the Israelis when they say there were terrorists there and they evacuated it hours before the attack took place at dawn. At dawn time, nobody knew about it. This is ridiculous. They just attacked a vacant camp.
DG: What type of camp was it?
IM: It had half-a-million Palestinian refugees. It used to be a Palestinian camp that was evacuated years [inaudible]. Those camps there would improve their livelihood to buy a house in a city or something. The reason that they attacked that camp was to try to create another story. The world was focusing on the wall and how he is building the wall inside. The despair of the Palestinian people. He wanted to make a news story and suddenly the whole media attention was diverted to that air raid.
DG: As you said that this was an internal issue within Israel, why did they decide that they wanted to bomb another country?
IM: This is a famous, political well-known -- it happens everywhere in the world. When a leader is pressurized internally, he creates an external conflict. The people suddenly are all discussing this issue. Will Syria retaliate? Could we retaliate back? What is going to happen? Suddenly, they forget their internal conflict. Its not like this is a new invention. Throughout history, it is practiced by politicians.
DG: So how is this event, weight in your relations with Israel now? How is it affected the relations between --
IM: Nothing. Because our relationship with Israel is absolutely frozen. Syria is just waiting for the Israeli people to elect a government that would resume negotiations. We know that with Sharon, the word 'peace' does not exist.
Actually, the BBC World Service had an interview with President Bush two days ago. You know, the world opinion, was surprised when President Bush described Ariel Sharon as a 'man of peace.' The most important BBC broadcaster, David Frost, asked President Bush two days ago, 'do you believe that Ariel Sharon is a man of peace?' President Bush said that he was a man of peace. But what we think in Syria is that Sharon was offended by this description. He hates being described as a man of peace. He hates to be portrayed as a [inaudible], as a hoax.
He was condemned twice by his own country for atrocities committed against his own people. Twice in his lifetime. Not by Syrian or Egyptian discourse. Do you understand? I think he was offended to be described as a man of peace. He never defended peace. The first thing he said was that 'were not interested in having peace with Syria.' Once he became Prime Minister. This is public policy. Its not like he hides it and claims something else.
I can't understand how he can be described as a man of peace.
DG: Why didn't Syria, how did Syria react to --
IM: We have made a strategic decision 10 years ago. We believe that the only feasible solution to the Middle East crisis is through diplomatic negotiations and international law.
Happily for us, unfortunately for Israel, every single resolution that was passed and was supported by the United States government itself we regarded it as a fair resolution for Syria. Israel refuses both resolutions. We are [inaudible] with them. Syria's interest is to stick with international law.
Every United Nations Security Counsel Resolution that was passed, that was passed with U.S. support, favors Syria. But of course, this is ink and paper. They are never applied.
We believe that we shouldn't be drawn into military conflict with Israel because we have made a strategic option for resolution of the Middle East conflict. So we went to the United Nations because we believe in international legitimacy and we tried to convince the security counsel to condemn it. But, the United States vetoed it. So what can we do? They veto resolutions that in spirit are derived from other resolutions that were actually ordered by the United States itself. Demanding that Israel withdrawal from Syrian territory -- occupied territories. We are a small nation, what can we do when you are facing such a superpower like the United States?
DG: How has Syria been a leader in fighting terrorism?
IM: I'll give you one example and you'll understand. First, we are not the world leaders of anything. We are a small nation with a problem. We have our land occupied and we want it freed. We want to have peace with our neighbors and we want to rebuild our lives.
However, what happened is, that the day the events happened on Sept. 11 th took place, the next day we sent a letter of condolences. That's not enough. What we did is, we talked to the United States and we told the United States that we have a wealth of information about Al Qaeda. We would happily share this information with the United States and the United States can help a lot in the fight against terrorism.
Actually this has happened. Information we provided with the United States and now I will quote secretary Colin Powell once more, 'has helped save American lives.'
DG: When did he say that?
IM: Well, he said that in a letter addressed to the Congress a year ago. But he was commenting on cooperation that we had with the United States on Al Qaeda. We believe that Al Qaeda is a terrible, terrorist organization.
This is just one example.
DG: Can you give another example?
IM: Yes. Let me tell you this. The most important example is the following: we keep on saying as loud as possible -- If you really want to combat terrorism worldwide, you have to address the issues.
DG: So what are the issues? And how can we change -- IM: What I think is -- let me give you two examples. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, those extremists fundamentalists groups started going to Afghanistan with the blessing and support of the CIA. They were actually armed by the CIA. We were telling America that that's wrong and that those people were turn against you once they are done with the Soviets. Because they are extremists. This is one thing that has happened. Nobody listened to us then.
Today, we continue on telling America. Please convince your Israeli friends that the only way to have peace is to stop the daily killing of the Israelis is to end the occupation. This is basic.
Can you understand that when you -- every action will generate a reaction. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is causing this terrible cycle of violence. Nobody listens to us.
When they wanted to invade Iraq, [inaudible] we went to our American friends and told them, 'don't invade Iraq, you will end up with terrible violence, with lots of polarization, you will inflame the region.' They said to us, 'no you are wrong, we will be met with rice and flowers.'
Look at the quagmire today. Look at that needless death. Those Italians, those Americans, those UN people. That was a needless death. The United States precipitated the war in Iraq. We were not really convinced of the weapons of mass destruction pretext. We never believed that Saddam Hussein has had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
We asked our American friends to be wise and careful, not to rush to Iraq. We told them. 'You will give fuel to extremism and fundamentalism.' Before the invasion of Iraq, not a single American life was being lost in the Middle East. Today, on a daily basis you are losing lives there.
Actually the best approach to combat terrorism, is wisdom, and justice for everybody. Of course we should never allow a terrorist to do something. But we should address the rules of terrorism. How can terrorists recruit people today in Iraq? Why weren't they able to recruit them only a year ago? Have you every heard of an American being killed in the Middle East a year ago? I challenge you. Today you're loosing lives on a daily basis in the Middle East.
Yes, this is what we think our strategy is to combat terrorism.
Cooperate -- as we did on Al Qaeda.
Share information. See where those guys are. Address the issues. Basic reasons that generate people with this terrorist mentality. So they can't recruit new people.
Whatever Sharon will do, whatever people he will kill, everyday a new suicide bomb[ing event takes place]. This is a nation that has been humiliated for fifty years. They don't have any hope in anything.
He won't even give them their dignity. Like every nation in the whole world, they would have a single person to recruit in suicidal bombings. This is what we believe. We might be wrong. We might be right. So let him keep on killing Palestinians and let more Palestinians continue killing his people. Until one day he might think that the Syrians are right. Probably ending occupation will lead to peace.
We are waiting.
DG: In almost every country there are terrorist groups operating within their borders or within their country. Can you help me to understand what some of the difficulties are in trying to control or deal with many of these groups?
IM: Where? In Syria? We do not believe that we have overt terrorist organizations doing anything. When we are told that there is something, we usually do something. If the United States tells us that we think that you have A or B terrorist group operating in Syria, we usually tell them, let us see. What source of information do you have? Let's see if this exists or not. If we capture those people, put them in prison. But with the problem with Syria is not this. The problem is that the media campaign here in the United States creates stories that absolutely unsubstantiated. Like they say that we plan for terrorist attacks on the occupied territory. This is false.
Let me tell you this story. The young lady who put explosives on her belt and went and killed herself on lots of people and went into a restaurant. Sharon accused us of planning this. This is silly. The next day, the day after, the Washington Post, here in DC printed her story. This young lady, [inaudible] . Go an read her story. The Israeli army linked her [inaudible]... why would she go and plan this suicidal attack? No. It's simple as this. She was so bitter, utter despair. She decided that the only thing she knew how to do was to kill herself.
This is not something I'm proud of. I'm just explaining to you. Yet, they say Damascus is responsible. This is so silly. Who would believe this?
The reasons for what she did have nothing to do with Syria. It has everything to do with Tel Aviv.
DG: So how do you respond to critics who are saying that people are going over the border --
IM: We tell them that this is absolutely ridiculous. However, if you have any evidence, come and show us. We have not seen this. But we try not to go so low. Look, we will tell them, how serious can they be? How can a far away capital influence people under occupation? If Damascus says stop killing themselves, they will stop killing themselves? Is this logical?
Young people who go and kill themselves do it out of despair. Not because a far away capital tells them to. We are not a superpower. How can we do this?
DG: But if they say that these individuals live in Syria? And I know that they feel that the government is responsible --
IM: Let me help you on this. Every single person that commits a suicidal bombing in the West Bank or in Gaza has lived all of his or all her life there. They have never ever been to Syria. Ever. Ever in their life. For one reason -- the borders are closed between Syria and Israel.
Nobody can move. Not a hen. Not a chicken. Not a bird. Israel knows this very well. Absolutely well. So don't believe these ridiculous stories you read in the media because not only are they ridiculous and counterproductive. If I were an American friend of Israel, and I really loved Israel and Israeli people, I would be honest with the Israelis. I would tell them to stop this onto yourself and your people. Damascus is not responsible for violence. The occupation is responsible for the violence.
If I have an Israeli grandchild and I want to save his or her life, I don't fabricate a story about Damascus. I tell Sharon -- withdrawal your army from the occupied territories. This is not your territories.
DG: You mentioned that the borders are sealed?
IM: The borders are closed and secured and this is a fact. It's absolutely true. Israel itself admits this fact. But, it admits this fact. Here they us the general ignorance of the situation and they fabricate such stories.
DG: What techniques are being used to ensure that the borders are being closed?
IM: Well, first. You can't even approach the borders. If I'm in Damascus, and I want to ride my car towards the Israeli borders. First you have a huge Syrian army controlling every checkpoint and preventing every Syrian or anybody else from approaching. Second, if you want to infiltrate. You have huge United Nations peacekeeping forces controlling the buffering zone between Syria and Israel. Absolutely not allowing any creature to ride to those borders. Then if you can penetrate the second line, you have a huge Israeli army controlling every single millimeter there. Anyone who goes there would understand that this is a ridiculous assertion.
That's why in Israel they don't say these stories on their press. Because the Israeli people know it. They [the press] only fabricates these stores here in the United States cause the American people don't know anything about the reality on the ground there.
Absolutely. Not a single human being can pass through these borders. A huge Syrian army, a huge United Nations army and a huge Israeli army. It's such a small border. So how can people cross those borders?
DG: Speaking of borders, there was a lot of heat earlier in the year when the United States first went into Iraq there were accusations of many of the Iraqi regime went over the border because the borders weren't being controlled. What's --
IM: In the early stages they were claiming that former Iraqi officials are in Syria. Every time they would make such a claim in the media, I would go to the State Department and would protest in DC at Foggy Bottom. I would say, 'can you please give me the name of the Iraqi official whom you think is going to Syria?' The reply would usually be, 'well we do not have names, but the moment that we do, we can be sure we will tell you.' What happened? Every single accusation evaporated into thin air.
One day I was on 'Meet the Press' and Tim Russert said to me, Dr. Germ and Dr. Anthrax are in Damascus. Who are Dr. Germ and Dr. Anthrax? They are two Iraqi scientists who are accused of developing the Iraqi chemical warfare program.
I said on the TV to Tim, 'this is absolutely untrue. They are not in Damascus. We do not have those people in Syria.' He said to me, 'are you claiming that the American government is lying?' I told him that I am not claiming that the American government is lying; I am saying that they have false reports.
He wouldn't believe me. Three days later what Iraqi scientist was found in Baghdad? The next day I went on Fox news and there was a new accusation. I told Greta Van Susteren . I told her that this has happened and every American media channel was calling and telling me that Dr. Anthrax and Dr. Germ were in Damascus. I was refuting this, but they wouldn't listen. Not one media channel called me and said, sorry we were wrong. All those accusations evaporated into thin air. They don't even exist nowadays.
The Iraqi leaders are now either captured. If the two or three left come to Syria, we would put them in prison. Especially if Saddam Hussein comes to Syria, because he is our archenemy. The only thing that we thought was good about the war in Iraq was toppling Saddam Hussein regime. Every else was terribly, terribly bad.
DG: So how is the border between Syria and Iraq protected or contained?
IM: Listen, I will make your life easier. You have politicians and ideologues here in the same stories about Syria. That we allow infiltrators to go to Iraq, but you have the American Army Commander in Iraq saying the problem is really negligible from Syrian borders.
The problem really is everything to do with Iraqi resistance. So you have two versions, of course the Syrian version is that we are not allowing infiltrators. The is supported by the Army field commanders in Iraq who really know what's going on. Then you have the politicians and ideologues who have been saying to the American people, if we go to Iraq it will be like a picnic. The Iraqi people will receive us with flowers and honey and everybody would be so happy.
Today, they are embarrassed and they want to complain for the reasons for the violence in Iraq. But, thank heavens, the American field commanders are saying, you know, it's not infiltrators. It is Iraqis who are very upset with the occupation. At least, we have somebody to defend us there. There are many reports in which those prominent military field commanders are saying the same message, that the problem is not with Syria. The problem is not with Syria.
The problem has to do with the people from Iraq who are unhappy with the American occupation. That's it. It has never been in the history of mankind that a country was occupied and that the people were happy with the occupation. This has not happened before. It's not happening today in Iraq. It's not happening in the West Bank. It will not happen in the future. If it happens, please call me and tell me -- look, if Canada invades the United States and occupies the United States and if you feel happy with the occupation and invasion, call me and tell me. It will surprise me a lot. I don't think anybody likes it. I don't think that the Iraqis are a proud nation with ten thousand years of history would love to see the Americans controlling their destiny.
DG: Given that you're very critical of the United States going into Iraq, has Syria, in what ways has Syria helped the situation at all? Either contributing forces?
IM: I can tell you lots of ways. First, we are providing northern Iraq with lots of electricity. This is a fact. In Mosul, they get electricity from Syria. I think that providing electricity to the people there is calming down the people there. Otherwise, because of the terrible conditions, the people would be very unrested.
We have just resumed the train service between Syria and Iraq. We are helping the people there and the commanders are happy. The relations between the Iraqis and the Syrian people are very ancient relations. We have close relations, we are almost one people. We care a lot. It's our interest to see that Iraq is stabilized. We condemn any violence we see today in Iraq because it's not helpful. We really want Iraq to be as stabilized as possible.
You know why? Because we want Iraq to regain its sovereignty. We are very upset about Iraq being occupied. The moment Iraq regains its sovereignty -- this is very good for Syria. We understand that the calmer it is in Iraq, the more possibility there is for Iraq to regain its sovereignty. This is what we want. This is our strategic option.
We have helped trace all the funds of the ex- Iraqi regimes that may exist in Syria. We have received a letter of gratitude from the Iraqi central bank. I have a copy of this letter here in my office. So, we are helping the Iraqi people getting back their money.
Let me tell you another fact. Have you heard of the Iraqi governing counsel? How many members they have? There used to be twenty-five, but one of them was killed so today there are twenty-five.
Seventeen out of twenty-four were living in Syria before the Iraqi regime fell because they only had Syria as a refuge. Seventeen out of twenty-four were holding Syrian passports to travel around with although they were Iraqis. One of them is the current president of this counsel, Mustaf [inaudible] used to move around the world on a Syrian passport because Saddam Hussein wouldn't give them an Iraqi passport. It shows you how close Syria and Iraq are to each other.
Regardless of what you hear, Syria and Iraq will always be very close to each other. We are brotherly countries -- almost one people.
DG: Where their financial ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and Syrian banks?
IM: No, it's not financial ties between regime and banks. There has been, you have to remember, the United Nations sponsored a program called, 'Oil for Food.' According to this official, legal program that has been ignored for some time. The Iraqi government was allowed to open accounts in Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon so that they can purchase food under the United Nations control. But there were no ties between regime and the Syrian banks. These are official Iraqi government accounts. That was a government [inaudible]. Remember, regardless of how you feel about Saddam Hussein, this was a government. The United Nations did allow them to exchange food for oil. Otherwise, the Iraqi people would starve and that would not be humane.
Once the Iraqi government collapsed the United Nations decreed that every Iraqi account should be frozen. So we froze those accounts. Today, the Iraqi people need this money. They came to use and asked us if we could pay back this money. Of course, it's not our money.
DG: How has Syria been victimized by terrorism?
IM: It's a long story. In the early 1980s, people similar to Al Qaeda, who called themselves the 'Muslim Brotherhood', launched a terror campaign in Syria. It was terrible. They were killing Syrian officials, Syrian university professors. Anyone who was secular was a legitimate target for them. It was really a terrible period and the Syrian government fought them ferociously. The were bloody battles between those fundamentalists and the Syrian government. Eventually, they were defeated. They stopped their violent activities.
Meanwhile we learned a lot about them. We had a wealth of information from fundamentalist groups so that once the September 11 th attack took place, we immediately offered this information to the United States. At one point, we thought that we were actually allies with the United States against our fight against terrorism. On the other hand, we believe that terrorism is only practiced by individuals.
There is something called 'state terrorism.' Israel is a state terrorist country. The use their military means to occupy other countries. This is illegal. Just like what the [inaudible] are doing. You know you could be sitting with your boyfriend in a café and a terrorist might come and kill you. Just because he has arms. The same is what Israel is doing to us. They occupy parts of our land, just because they have more arms than we do. That's the only means they have. The are more powerful. They send their army. They occupy lands. This is our example of how Syria considers itself victimized by state terrorism.
DG: In Bush's 'War on Terrorism' over forty countries have detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does Syria have any detainees?
IM: In Guantanamo Bay? You mean Syrian detainees. Probably there are, but let me tell you this, if they come to Syria, we would detain them as well. You understand, if I would presume that yes, there are some detainees in Guantanamo Bay, that are Syrians. But if they have committed a crime or that they are proven a terrorist, we would put them in prison ourselves. However, I don't believe there is any legal process there. I think it's, you know, a little bit, 'dodgy'.
But, we are very clear about this. We will not allow people to carry arms and go around and fight their own battles. This is illegal in Syria.
DG: So do you know about any of the Syrians? Can you tell me about them because I know that the U.S. government is not releasing the identities of --
IM: To be honest, I don't know. We are not interested in them for one reason. We were so clear and explicit about telling our people that they should never, ever join such groups. No if some of them end up in such conditions, if they are now in terrible conditions in Guantanamo Bay, it's their problem. We were very clear about this. We were extremely against any Syrian person from joining such groups. This is what I'm telling you, if there is some from Guantanamo Bay and they come to Syria, probably they would be put in prison.
DG: The latest on Guantanamo Bay is that Ahmed Al-Halabi and James Yee have connections to the Syrian government. What's your reaction to that?
IM: You have American people who commit crimes. This does not mean that they are related to the American government. Try to have a more wise approach to things. To be logical. Syria is the sworn enemy of fundamentalist groups that might be imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. We are a secular government in Syria. Why would we give a damn about them? Why? What's in it for us?
We are fighting against them. They are our enemies. If they don't want to fight the Americans, they might come back and fight the Syrian government itself first. Second, we were providing information to the Americans about these people. Want us now to help them, why? Please try to understand the reality as it is not as you. Read our history. We have a bloody history with Muslim fundamentalists. Why would we now suddenly become interested in them? We have a very secular, political regime in Syria. Those people consider us just as bad as the Americans. We will never have any relation with them. I was clear about this even before you asked me this question.
So the accusation about -- because one them when to Syria and married a Syrian woman then suddenly becomes related to the Syrian government? It's absolutely ridiculous. However, let me tell you this, the American government here does not believe that we have any relation to those two people. Its just speculation by the press. They only know that we had a bloody, troubled history with Muslim fundamentalists. We would never suddenly become best friends. [laughs] But, at least its clear to the American government.
DG: What's Syria's position on the Syrian Accountability Act that's currently being reviewed in Congress. I know it was passed in the House --
IM: My position on this is the following: This Act is inspired by Israel and implemented here. It is a blatant example of the blind bias towards Israel and the Middle East. That's our only reaction. We will not care for it. We will try not to even consider it. We are friends of the United States.
Syria is not an enemy of the United States. Some forces here are trying to create another enemy for the United States. We will not follow their ways. But, sustaining our communications with the American people and the American Administration. I even visited Congress when they first signed this. I told them, regardless of what you have signed, we still believe that we do not have basic problems with Syria and America. Everything in that bill is either a lie, or an Israeli inspired plot.
We insist that regardless of this bill, we will stick to our belief that if American values prevail in the Middle East, Syria would gain a lot.
I visited twenty-three or twenty-four Congressmen in the past two weeks.
DG: Can you give any names?
IM: Of course. Tom Lantos. There are many. Why would you want the names?
DG: Because I have been following the legislation and I went to some hearings. It's very interesting how several...
IM: [To Press Assistant] Give me a copy of the letter we sent to one Congressman we sent to them two or three days ago. I am visiting a lot. It's not like I'm hiding them. I an give you all the names if you'd like.
DG: I'm just curious. It adds more --
IM: I visit everybody. I believe that most of them just have misconceptions. For example, Richard Lugar said probably the Syria Accountability Act would convince Syria to resume peace negotiations. I told him, thank you for this noble idea. I plead with you, please help us resume the peace negotiations. For crying out loud, we want to resume the peace negotiations. Israel is refusing. Suddenly you're saying probably the Syria Accountability Act will convince us to? It's like they live in a parallel universe. [inaudible] I wrote him a letter.
DG: How do you respond to the Bush Administration's claims that Syria has sheltered or continues to Shelter former Iraqi leaders?
IM: Give us the names. Where are they? We didn't know anything about them. Instead of sending accusations, help us. Tell us, Mr. so-and-so is there. Let us see if he's there. Let's be positive, let's stop this negative campaign. You believe that we have an Iraqi official in Damascus? Ok. Where or what is his name?
At the beginning, before they caught anyone, they were claiming that most of them were in Syria. One by one, they were caught and each one that was caught -- but today they are not repeating these accusations anymore. Those accusations were leveled against Syria at one point. Today, they're hush-hush. They just disappeared. So my response would be, "which one is still in Syria, please?" The are not even repeating that.
DG: It's old news.
IM: Old news. They don't even mention that anymore. It's just like the WMDs. You know.
### |
