Saudis and 9/11

Senator Bob Graham, Head of the Joint Congressional 9/11 Inquiry from Feb - Dec 2002, was interviewed on the PBS Lehrer Hour in Dec 2002: "I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government." He later made it clear he was referring to Saudi Arabia.
.
In Jan 2000, 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were met by al Qaeda fanatic Omar al-Bayoumi when they flew into Los Angeles. Al-Bayoumi took them to San Diego and provided them with money, accommodation and assistance with their driver's licenses. For eighteen months al-Bayoumi was in and out of the Saudi embassy on a weekly basis while his wife was getting tens of thousands of dollars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Prince Bandar, Saudi Ambassador to the US. The 9/11 Commission heard that the cheques were paid as charity to assist the wife with an illness. The Commission also saw evidence of a Saudi payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta in Florida (not to be confused with the $109,000 payment made by the Head of Pakistan Military Intelligence). Al-Bayoumi, who reportedly had business connections to Prince Bandar's father, disappeared just two months before 9/11.
.
In June 2006 Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) headed a Congressional hearing into the funding of Islamic terrorism. The FBI's assistant Director for Counter Terrorism identified Saudi Arabia as the "epicenter" of terrorist funding that included al Qaeda as late as 2006.
.
When Khaled Sheik Mohammed confessed to 9/11 he also described a later planned attack against Israel: "I was responsible for planning, financing, and surveying for the destruction of buildings in the Israeli city of Elat by using airplanes leaving from Saudi Arabia."


http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-ksm-mysteries.html
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/08/torturing-truth.html
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Usual_Business.htm

Niger Forgery

Larissa Alexandrovna has done detailed work on the Niger forgeries. The background is complex. Her conclusion regarding the Niger forgery itself: the focus on Michael Ledeen is misplaced. Look instead to Elliott Abrams, Harold Rhode (also 1 2 3) and Cheney's Office of Special Plans (OSP) for Iraq and the Rendon Group (also 1 2 3 4), a DOD propaganda contractor.

According to Larissa, the White House plans, from even before Bush came to office in 2000, included an attack upon Iran which, at least for now, has been derailed. In this capacity Michael Ledeen was brought in by Cheney - not because of his Iran expertise - but because of his contacts with people like Manucher Ghorbanifar (also here), an expatriate Iranian arms dealer previously banned by the CIA for providing false intelligence. Ledeen's efforts to generate 'marketable intelligence' in relation to Iran put him in contact with Italians, some of whom ended up in delivering the Niger forged document to the US. This has led many to believe - falsely, says Larissa - that Ledeen was involved in the Niger forgery.

She also mentions Lawrence Franklin, a US Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about US policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) while working for the DOD.

The problem with this popular account of Franklin's activities is as Juan Cole points out:

"Franklin was not giving the directive to AIPAC in order to provide them with information. He was almost certainly seeking feedback from them on elements of it. He was asking, "Do you like this? Should it be changed in any way?"

"And, he might also have been prepping AIPAC for the lobbying campaign scheduled for early in 2005, when Congress will have to be convinced to authorize military action, or at least covert special operations, against Iran. AIPAC probably passed the directive over to Israel for the same reason--not to inform, but to seek input. That is, AIPAC and Israel were helping write US policy toward Iran, just as they had played a key role in fomenting the Iraq war."


He makes a further telling point:

"The Niger forgeries also try to implicate Iran. Indeed, the idea of a joint Iraq/Iran nuclear plot was so far-fetched that it is what initially made the Intelligence and Research division of the US State Department suspicious of the forgeries, even before the discrepancies of dates and officials in Niger were noticed."

And Cole describes (also here) how in mid 2003 Franklin, Ledeen, Rhode and Ghorbanifar undermined an offer by Iran to turn over five al-Qaida operatives (including al-Zarqawi) in exchange for Washington dropping its support for Mujahadeen el Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq.

Larissa continues: "Franklin went to Rome to discuss Iran and his intelligence espionage was all about Iran as well. Ledeen, Ghorbanifar, and Franklin all focused on Iran and continued well after the 2003 start of the Iraq war. Rhode, on the other hand, knew Judith Miller and Chalabi quite well, with all three meeting in Iraq in April of 2003. Rhode was part of all of the Rome meetings and most of the Paris meetings. So why has no one ever focused on Harold Rhode? Because everyone has been too busy focusing on Ledeen and the Iran arm of the policy -- myself included, but for a different reason... In the end, it does not matter who actually sticker taped the forgeries together, rather, what is key is who ordered it and who paid for it and how it was then used. To me, that is the story."

The key personnel in regard to the Niger forgery itself according to Larissa, are: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rhode, the DOD and the Rendon Group all acting through the OSP for Iraq.

The OSP for Iraq was a creation of Rumsfeld (and Cheney) in order to obtain doctored intelligence using the DOD that would support the case for attacking Iraq - 'intelligence' they knew they would not be forthcoming from regular intelligence channels such as the NSA and the CIA because they had no basis in fact.

The OSP:

"The Office of Special Plans, which existed from September, 2002, to June, 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Donald Rumsfeld and led by Douglas Feith, to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq. An allegedly similar unit, called the Iranian Directorate, was created in 2006 to deal with intelligence on Iran."

"In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsisent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that:

"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war.""

(It's also worth mentioning here that Rice received a memo raising serious questions about the uranium in October 2002, three months before Bush included the Niger reference in his SOTU address. Stephen Hadley, received two memos as well as a phone call warning from Tenet. So both Hadley and Rice were prepared to mislead Congress over Iraq. It should be assumed that they would lie about 9/11 if they felt it were politically expedient to do so.)

All of the OSP guys found an ideological home at the American Enterprise Institute. More here:

According to insiders, Rhode worked with Feith to purge career Defense officials who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the muscular anti-Iraq crusade that Wolfowitz and Feith wanted. Rhode appeared to be "pulling people out of nooks and crannies of the Defense Intelligence Agency and other places to replace us with," says a former analyst. "They wanted nothing to do with the professional staff. And they wanted us the fuck out of there."

The unofficial, off-site recruitment office for Feith and Rhode was the American Enterprise Institute...Headquartered at AEI is Richard Perle...chairman of the Pentagon's influential Defense Policy Board. Rhode, along with Michael Rubin, a former AEI staffer who is also now at the Pentagon, was a ubiquitous presence at AEI conferences on Iraq over the past two years, and the two Pentagon officials seemed almost to be serving as stage managers for the AEI events, often sitting in the front row and speaking in stage whispers to panelists and AEI officials.

Just after September 11, 2001, Feith and Rhode recruited David Wurmser, the director of Middle East studies for AEI, to serve as a Pentagon consultant. Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office, which would be the nucleus of the Defense Department's Iraq disinformation campaign
.

On September 4, 2004, the Washington Post reported that FBI counterintelligence investigators had questioned David Wurmser, along with Harold Rhode, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith about their involvement in passing classified information to Ahmad Chalabi and AIPAC. David Wurmser's wife, Israeli-born Meyrav Wurmser, co-authored for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 an Israeli policy document (A Clean Break) that called for the overthrow of Iraq and Iran in pusuit of Israeli security in the Middle East.

What we have is a cabal of right wingers establishing their own intelligence program through the Defence Department and bypassing the CIA and NSA. They have strong ties to AIPAC, support Israel's foreign policy goals (which involve the invasion of countries in the Middle East), possess an ideological home in the AEI, are financially tied to major defense industries. A number of them are former Iran Contra agents willing to lie to Congress. The have utilisied a private industry -the Rendon Group - with a track record of destabilising countries and controlling intelligence in support US foreign policy. And they have been prepared to forgoe pursuing al Qaeda if it conflicts with other foreign policy goals - such as conducting a war against Iran.

The arguments about possible (some say, likely) connections to the events of 9/11 deserve a separate discussion but there is evidence of awareness of the hijackers' activities by various foreign intelligence agencies (1 2 3 4 5 6). There is also evidence that Israeli intelligence was also aware of the activities of the hijackers prior to 9/11 (1 2). And it is not too far a stretch to conclude that it would not have been ideologically beyond the people discussed here to have participated in the events of 9/11.

Ban Ki Moon

December 28-31, 2006 -- WMR [Wayne Masden Report] was the first media outlet to highlight the right-wing religious connections of incoming UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, including possible links to the global movement led by "Rev." Sun Myung Moon (no relation).

The Forward newspaper has now uncovered links between Ban and Michael Landau, a Manhattan-based Orthodox Jewish businessman who is connected to Republican Religious Right icon and former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer.

Bauer is a core member of the Religious Right organization, the Arlington Group, which, along with Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Paul Weyrich is closely linked to the powerful Fellowship Foundation, also based in Arlington, Virginia.

According to Forward, Landau is a supporter of the Jerusalem Coalition, an organization of Orthodox Jewish Republicans that sponsored Bauer's 2003 trip to Israel.

More alarming is the fact that Landau is involved in African mining, which presents Ban with a clear conflict-of-interests as the UN continues to try and stem the flow of conflict "blood diamonds" to Jewish diamond dealers in Tel Aviv, Antwerp, Amsterdam, London, and New York.

According to Forward, Landau's Vango Holdings handled investor relations for Montreal's Searchgold Resources, a firm active in Gabon and Guinea, before parting company for reasons unknown. SearchGold states that it is "an international mining exploration and development company with an advanced gold exploration project in Gabon, West Africa and a bulk sampled diamond project in Guinea, West Africa."

Guinea has, in the past, been a pass through for blood diamonds from Sierra Leone and Liberia. Evangelist Pat Robertson has had gold and diamond business dealings with two African dictators -- Liberia's Charles Taylor and Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko. Sun Myung Moon has also been active in dubious business dealings in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, both major sources for blood diamonds. Moon's activities in Angola date back a number of years, to his support for UNITA's late Jonas Savimbi (assassinated by Angola's central government with the help of mercenaries from Halliburton) and his movement's infiltration of one of the Cabindan independence movements.

The new UN Secretary General is connected to Africa's dubious diamond mining industry.

Landau also helps spearhead the American-Israel Friendship League (AIFL), headed by former Anti-Defamation League (ADL) chair Kenneth Bialkin. The AIFL sponsors trip to Israel for African ambassadors at the UN. Landau, according to Forward, is also close to Jean Ping, Gabon's Foreign Minister and a former President of the General Assembly.

Landau is also a frequent contributor to GOP candidates, including Virginia's defeated Senator George Allen's recent campaign, South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, and Hillary Clinton's 2000 opponent, Rick Lazio. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Landau is associated with two other political contributing businesses, Hampton Financial LLC and HKL Development LLC. Past GOP contributions by Landau have been in the names of Sterling Realty, Sullivan & Cromwell, and Reed Properties.

The Bush administration, through outgoing US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, strongly backed Ban to be Secretary General over less problematic candidates with less evasive characteristics. The reasons for this support are now becoming painfully and nauseatingly clear.

Iran sanctions

I am disappointed that The Australian has chosen to publish superficial and biased letters against Iran. There is no association between the events of 9/11 and Iran. And Hilary Sage's claim that Iran wants to "exterminate" Jews would come as some surprise to all those Jews living safely in Iran. Her further claim about "world domination" is baseless.

The UN has issued limited sanctions against Iran at the behest of the US who have made it clear that military attacks upon Iran for non-compliance are a possibility. In this context it is simply inappropriate for The Australian to uncritically report superficial falsehoods about Iran.

Iran's human rights abuses, while objectionable, are in no way different from many countries, including China. They should not be used as an argument for war.

Iranian leaders have called for the "end to Israel" but only as a state having a legal identity under challenge. That ought to be distinguished from calls for killings. There are expert translations on the Internet vigorously disputing claims that speeches by Ahmadinejad support a modern day Holocaust against the Jews. His speeches are marked by particular features of cultural and legal rhetoric.

Iran is not associated with al-Qaeda and harbours no global jihadist ambitions.

Iranians were deeply sympathetic to the US following 9/11. It is also a lie that Iran hates the West. Following 9/11, Iran gave the US extensive intelligence against al Qaeda; they offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment, and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military, all under US supervision; and they assisted in the Bonn discussions. All this as gestures of goodwill to the West. In response, the US State Department recommended a more formal agreement with Iran, but they were rebuffed by President Bush who, just two months later, described Iran as part of the "axis of evil".

The US has consistently refused to provide Iran with any security-guarantees against unsolicited US attacks and many US leaders seek regime change in Iran regardless of nuclear issues.

In 2003, just after the invasion of Baghdad, the Iranians faxed the US with an open-ended offer for full discussions - including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But the Bush administration, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. So much for missed opportunities!

Even Robert Gates, the new US Defense Secretary has recently admitted to Congress that the only reason Iran might want nuclear weapons is that they are surrounded by powers with such weapons. That is, defensive intentions only.

The US has been using a terrorist organization the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) in Iran as part of its active program to bring down the Iran regime.

In March 2006 the MEK assassinated 22 Iranian officials, including a governor. Bombings and other destabilizing activities have taken place continuously, all with US support. In this respect, Iran has every right to regard the US as a sponsor of terrorism.

The politics of Iran should not be seen as homogeneous and there is far from universal support for the current leadership.

Israel has legitimate security concerns and is right to call for an Iran free from nuclear weapons.

Israeli agents within Iran have found no evidence of any weapons program. Nor has the IAEA. But to safeguard itself Israel wants to deny even a civil program to Iran. The NPT, however, is designed to allow countries to develop such programs. By all assesments, Iran is doing exactly this. That is why the current UN sanctions against Iran, while understandable, have no legal merit. Claims that Iran is in breech of the NPT are without foundation.

The US has been misrepresenting Iran's nuclear program for some time now.

In September this year the IAEA complained publicly about a US Intelligence Committe report falsely claiming Iranian production of weapons grade uranium at 90% enrichment, while IAEA monitoring showed only 3%. Iran's civil nuclear facilities are video monitored around the clock and show no weapons grade enrichment.

And the Washington Post reported in August 2005 that the latest consensus among US intelligence agencies is that "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years."

The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.

The US administration has shifted the public debate to require that Iran demonstrate that it does not have such a program. This echoes the previous demand on Iraq that it "prove" it had no WMDs. It is impossible to prove a negative and Iran is placed in an impossible position here. The public demonisation of Iran in this regard ought to be seen for what it is: a US propaganda program to legitimise any future military attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities.

China and Russia have provided highly qualified support for the recent UN sanctions against Iran for complex reasons.

But both countries have a defence pact with Iran and it is simply not credible that either China or India -with their natural gas contracts and energy needs - will accept any extended US or Israeli attack upon Iran.

We cannot afford a repeat of the lies used to invade Iraq.

This is especially so where a number of senior US military officers have reported that the Bush administration is insisting that nuclear weapons can be used in attacks upon Iran. The immediate consequences of any attack upon Iran would be oil at $200 a barrel and a nose-diving global economy. With that background I call upon The Australian to insist on an informed public debate about Iran free from inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric.

web links

News and Commentary

http://www.antiwar.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

http://www.consortiumnews.com/

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

http://www.juancole.com/

http://truthout.org/

http://www.opednews.com/

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Blogs, analysis

http://www.wotisitgood4.blogspot.com

http://thestressblog.com/

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

http://collectioncf72.blogspot.com/

http://www.atlargely.com/

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

http://www.warandpiece.com/

Conspiracy, 9/11

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/index.html

http://www.madcowprod.com/index.html

http://www.911blogger.com

http://www.damien911.blogspot.com/

http://www.wotthehellisthis.blogspot.com/

http://www.coalition-criminals.blogspot.com/

Internet security, antivirus, antispyware

http://www.spywarewarrior.com

Iran 2007

The war against Iran continues.

The New York Times (20 Dec) has reported that “the United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran.”

Bush officials have cited two “justifications” for these maneuvers:

(1) to enforce any sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council as a result of Iran’s refusal to comply with its resolutions (sanctions which have not yet been imposed); and

(2) to deter Iran from a military blockade of oil shipments in retaliation for not-yet-imposed sanctions.


What have we come to? Even UN sanctions, a fig leaf of respectability for what will be a new unsolicited war of aggression, are to follow the American timetable. Right wing commentators are going to have work hard to justify this one.

2007 is the double down year for Bush: provoke an Israeli-Syria conflict which can then be expanded to include Iran.

The US is positioning warships near Iran in order to enforce UN sanctions in relation to WMDs. No such UN sanctions yet exist. If that isn't a US commitment to attack Iran next year, I don't what is.

We also have the lesson from the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict. It has not been well understood but the US was angling for Israel to attack Syria even then in the hope of generating a broader ME conflict. Journalist Robert Parry has this to say:

"In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, confirmed that neocons in and outside the Bush administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in Iraq...In early 2007, the revival of this neoconservative strategy of using the Israeli military to oust the Syrian government and to inflict damage on Iran’s nuclear program may represent a last-ditch – and high-risk – gamble by Bush and the neocons to salvage their historic legacy."

Forget Iraq, these guys are going for Iran. The Middle East will be aflame and Western peoples will have taken to the streets. It won't make any difference.


Footnotes :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/middleeast/21navy.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/122006.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-administrations-provocations.html
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/12/outline-of-disaster-as-it-started-to.html

war crimes - John Howard

John Howard is a war criminal.

Australia is bound by numerous international treaties and laws. They govern commerce, transport, the environment, diplomacy etc. International law is huge and is used every day. It's not an "add-on" to our laws, nor is it discretionary on the part of our government.

We have signed the Geneva Convention and are bound by its detailed and specific provisions which say:

(1) you can only invade another country if you are under imminent threat, or the UN Security Council sanctions it;

(2) if you do invade you must provide sufficient troops to protect the citizens and resources;

(3) you are responsible for any atrocities carried out by your troops.

So let's take these, shall we:

The legality of the Iraq invasion has been fiercely contested by many from the outset.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. On 15 Jan 2003 the International Commission of International Law Jurists (a body with UN Consultative status), provided an open letter to all members of the Security Council that bore the signatures of hundreds of senior jurists in support of the proposition that the Iraq war was illegal as a matter of international law. Similar notices were provided by legal experts in many countries prior to the Iraq invasion.

Professor Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law at Sydney University, gave a detailed analysis in the Sydney Morning Herald (June 3, 2004) of the legal obligations of Australia in Iraq under the Geneva Convention. Quite aside from any question of the act of invasion of Iraq, his unequivocal view was that the 'coalition of the willing' had a strict legal obligation to ensure the safety of civilians and prisoners as part an occupying force. According to Prof.Rothwell, any failure to carry out those duties constituted prosecutable war crimes.

Put simply, if you invade a country you are LEGALLY required to ensure sufficient troops for the safety of the citizens. If you don't, you have committed a war crime.

Formal advice from senior US military leaders (and specifically, Gen. Anthony Zinni) to President Bush prior to the invasion was that he would need at least 400,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. That advice was ignored. 140,000 troops were sent in. The result was the looting of Iraq cultural and economic resources and the preventable deaths of, some say, 655,000 people.

Further, the LEGAL responsibilities of the US government and its allies were not reduced by the installation of the so-called Interim Government of Iraq in mid 2004.

Under the laws of war, the United States government (and Australia, as a coalition partner) remained fully accountable for the behavior of its puppet government especially since that government did not have the resources to ensure civil order.

These conclusions are detailed in the Geneva Convention and even spelled out in paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956):

"The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant."

In summary, there is a strong body of evidence in support of the claim that the war in Iraq was ILLEGAL under international law in terms of -

(1) the invasion itself;

(2) the civilian deaths that arose from the refusal by the US and Australia to provide sufficient troops necessary to ensure civil order;

(3) the incidents of the torture of prisoners that occurred under the occupying forces.

These all constitute prosecutable war crimes under the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

John Howard may have wrongly believed there were WMDs in Iraq, but he allowed the weapons inspectors to be withdrawn under Bush's orders. The proper course of action would have been to wait until they had completed their work. Further, there was neither UN sanction for the invasion, nor any imminent threat from Saddam. Finally, Howard would have been aware of the US military advice that 400,000 troops were needed but he chose to ignore it.

You don't get to invade countries just because you are white, wealthy, well-armed and you want to. John Howard is guilty of war crimes.

white phosphorus

Since serious questions have been raised about the validity of claims that the US used phosphorus and other prohibited weapons in the attack on Fallujah, I hope that some documentation for this can be published here in response.

American soldiers used white phosphorus in the operation Phantom Fury attack on Fallujah. Though white phosphorus is not specifically banned, all incendiaries were banned by the UN in 1980. White phosphorus spreads on the skin and catches fire. It cannot be extinguished or washed off with water. In military slang, white phosphorus is known as Willy Pete, or Whiskey Pete. Italian TV produced a documentary on its use by US forces on the citizens of Fallujah, including photographic evidence and eye witness statements. The Boston Globe, All Headline News and Reuters reported the story.

The US department of defence has admitted to using MK-77 Incendiary bombs in Iraq. MK-77 is just napalm in canisters. To repeat, all such incendiary bombs have been banned by the UN since 1980.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/11/09/us_fired_phosphorus_in_iraq_tv_reports/
http://www.chris-floyd.com/fallujah/
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd12172005.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/495?OpenDocument

Dr Salam Ismael, of the Baghdad-based group Doctors for Iraq, said that photographic evidence pointed to the use of napalm on civilians during the second siege of Fallujah.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-doctor-brings-evidence-of-us-napalm-at-fallujah/2006/05/22/1148150185038.html

In March 2003 Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli of Iraq's Ministry of Health made the claim at a Baghdad press conference that US forces had used mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians in their assault on the city of Falluja:

"I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses."

http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/744/1/80/
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en/420dd721e0ff0.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_%28weapon%29#Use_in_Iraq

Independant reporter Dahr Jamail claimed that the US had used poison gas in the attacks on Fallujah.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/29/1448226

Interestingly, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who had produced a documentary and a number of articles about US atrocities in Fallujah, was kidnapped outside Baghdad University in February 2005 by four gunmen. Eventually released, she was making her way to Baghdad Airport when her vehicle came under heavy fire from US forces. One person died and Sgrena and another car occupant were wounded. The cause of the incident was hotly debated and was considered by some to be a US response to Sgrena's reporting from Fallujah. The incident led to strained diplomatic relations between Italy and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliana_Sgrena