TAILWIND

REBUTTAL TO THE ABRAMS/KOHLER

REPORT
This rebuttal responds to the Report on CNN Broadcast Valley of Death by attorneys
Floyd Abrams and David Kohler dated July 2, 1998 (the AK Report). The AK Report,
prepared in less than two weeks, on our eight month investigation contains numerous
significant inaccuracies, mistakes and omissions. The AK Report is thin on detail, and
shows a weak and superficial understanding of the facts upon which the broadcast was
based. It makes unsupported propositions regarding the credibility of sources, appears
to rely on third party reporting, virtually ignores the most significant confirming and
corroborating statements from sources, and repeatedly proposes ambiguities which are
at odds with any common sense reading of the interview transcripts.
Before broadcast, CNNs top management gave both Tailwind stories (aired on June 7
and June 14, 1998) and their producers its full backing and support. They then withdrew
that support and fired us. These actions have profound and far reaching implications for
this kind of difficult and serious journalism. We hope that every thoughtful journalist with
an interest in this controversy will take the time to read both the AK Report and this
response in full before coming to any conclusions.

The most serious problems with the AK Report fall into three main categories, and the
following represent the most significant of its deficiencies, which are more fully
enumerated in the body of our response:

1.

METHOD OF PREPARATION OF THE AK REPORT

(a)
INDEPENDENCE. The AK Report has been widely touted as an independent
report. One glance at the cover confirms that it is nothing of the sort. The co-author of
the AK Report is David Kohler, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of CNN. The
other co-author, Floyd Abrams, was hired and paid by CNN.

(b)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. David Kohler, the co-author of the AK Report, has a

glaring conflict of interest, not only because he reports to members of CNN senior
management who approved the Tailwind broadcasts, but also because he himself
reviewed and approved both broadcasts and involved himself in the editorial decisions
on those broadcasts as CNN General Counsel. Mr. Kohler involved himself in the
editorial decisions at CNN CEO Tom Johnsons request in order, according to Mr. Kohler,

to provide Mr. Johnson with comfort about the broadcasts.

The AK Report itself suggests that it is designed to absolve CNN management, including
Mr. Kohler, of any responsibility. Following a brief introduction, the AK Report states that
[s]ince this report is highly critical of the reporting on Operation Tailwind, it may be
useful to set forth at the outset precisely what information CNN news management
understood supported the underlying conclusions of the broadcast. (emphasis added.)
Not only does the AK Report fail to precisely set forth all of the information contained in
the briefing book prepared for CNNs senior management, but it does not explain why in
a report highly critical of the reporting of a broadcast it may be useful to set forth
managements understanding of the broadcast. Managements understanding is
relevant only if the report was designed to absolve management of responsibility.
(c) FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS. For nearly two weeks following the second
broadcast we were gagged by CNN from talking to the press. During that time,
CNN hired Floyd Abrams, we were told, to counsel us on First Amendment rights
and the protection of our confidential sources. We met with Mr. Abrams for an
aggregate combined total of less than three hours over a three-day period (June
23, 24 and 25), largely to discuss confidential sources. During this period,
patently inaccurate factual statements were widely circulating in the press that
have now become accepted as established fact by the journalistic community,
the public, and, in some instances, even by the authors of the AK Report. At Mr.
Kohlers request, we provided a 19-page memorandum responding to some of
the criticisms that had been made of the broadcast in the press. This
memorandum did not address, and was not intended to address, many aspects
of our sourcing.
Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler told us that we would be interviewed after they had reviewed
the transcripts and videotapes upon which the broadcast was based. We were never
interviewed as promised. Mr. Abrams has attempted to dodge their failure to interview
us by saying he and Mr. Kohler relied on their brief meetings with us and the 19-page
memorandum. Neither their brief meetings with us before they reviewed the transcripts
nor the 19-page memorandum could in any way match interviewing us directly after the
transcripts were read and the tapes screened. This defies any notion of a fair and
complete investigation.
Finally, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler broke their commitment to allow us to comment and
object to the draft of their report before it was released.
We were tried, convicted and sentenced in a closed proceeding that failed any test of
fairness or due process. Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler broke their word throughout the
investigation. We were star chambered.
(d)
HASTE. Over the course of eight months, our reporting generated thousands of
pages of transcripts and many videotaped interviews. The AK Report took less than two

weeks. This is not enough time to make a proper assessment of the information we
received, as this Rebuttal will show. We do not know how much of the written material
the authors of the AK Report reviewed (they do not say), but to our knowledge, of all the
videotaped interviews, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler only requested to see those with
Admiral Moorer and Lieutenant Van Buskirk. If so, this is inadequate. Any review of
Captain McCarleys videotaped interview, for example, makes clear the manner in which
he answered our questions and casts a red light on his credibility that is not evident from
a mere review of his transcripts.
(e)
NO JOURNALISTIC REVIEW. The authors of the AK report are both attorneys,
not journalists. Prior to the issuance of the AK Report, we requested that a journalism
dean replace Mr. Kohler and be appointed as a co-author, but this request was ignored.
Much of CNNs post-retraction coverage has concentrated on the assertion that the
broadcast did not have proof. Since when is this the journalistic standard? Even in a
criminal court of law the standard is not absolute proof, but proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. A review of this Rebuttal will show that we had an enormous amount of
confirming, corroborating and supporting information for the broadcast, sufficient to
justify its going to air.
(f)
BREACH OF CONFIDENCES. In the AK Report, against our vigorous protests,
Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler have disclosed sources in breach of confidentiality
obligations undertaken by us on behalf of CNN in the course of our investigation. CNN
and Messrs. Abrams and Kohler thus knowingly broke one of the most important tenets
of journalism protect your sources.

2.

MAJOR DEFICIENCIES OF THE AK REPORT

The AK Report is littered with thin analysis, misstatements and inaccuracies. We list
some examples below.
(a)
SELECTIVE INFORMATION. The AK Report virtually ignores much of the most
important information and attempts to discredit the many important sources that
supported the story. At the same time, it ignores information that undermines the
credibility or statements of three men on the mission whose statements the AK Report
characterizes as denying the story. In fact, any review of the statements made by these
sources prior to broadcast will show that their statements were self-contradictory and in
many instances supported the story. We will cite five examples of the presentation of
selective information by the AK Report, but there are many more set forth in this
Rebuttal.
Moorers May Interview: The AK Report devotes a full 12 of its 54 pages to quotes
from the first off-camera interview with Admiral Moorer in December 1997, and the follow
up on-camera interview the very next month, in January 1998. The quotes are set forth
non-sequentially in the AK Report, which substantially distorts their content. However,
the AK Report virtually ignores the third and most important interview with the Admiral in
May 1998, referring to it in only a single paragraph on page 29 of the AK Report. In that
third off-camera interview with April Oliver, Admiral Moorer was asked whether killing

defectors was the mission in Tailwind and replied I have no doubt about that. 1 In that
interview, he also clearly and unambiguously confirmed that sarin nerve gas was by and
large available for search and rescue missions, that it was definitely available in the
Vietnam War and that it saved American lives in Laos. None of these confirmations are
even given passing mention in the AK Report which concludes that none of Moorers
statements are sufficiently clear to be relied upon as a true confirmation or anything like
it. We have consequently felt it necessary to quote Admiral Moorers actual words
extensively in this Rebuttal. (We invite journalists to read the quotes from that interview,
not referenced by the AK Report, which are set forth on pages 14 to 19 of this Rebuttal.)
Moorers Pre-Broadcast Approval and Post-Broadcast Statement: Six days before
the broadcast aired, after his three interviews, Admiral Moorer read and approved the
script of the broadcast which plainly states that he confirms that nerve gas was used and
that defectors were the target. This extraordinary final approval by Admiral Moorer
exceeds any normal journalistic standard of confirmation. Even after the controversy
over the story broke, Admiral Moorer stated three more times that he did indeed confirm
to April Oliver that sarin nerve gas was used on Tailwind and more widely on search and
rescue missions. These three further confirmations took place in the presence of both
Jack Smith and April Oliver and are reflected in their notes of that meeting. Incredibly,
the AK Report refers to Moorers approval of the script as a potential confirmation. The
day after the initial broadcast, the Pentagon faxed Admiral Moorer a statement headed,
Statement by Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (ret.) which said In my discussions with
CNN, I did not confirm the use of Sarin gas by U.S. military forces during Operation
Tailwind. (emphasis added.) Admiral Moorer amended this statement to say I did not
authorize the use of Sarin gas by U.S. military forces during Operation Tailwind.
(emphasis added.) The AK Report makes no mention of this. Clearly, Admiral Moorer
himself believed that he had confirmed the use of sarin gas on Tailwind to CNN, even
though the authors of the AK Report resolutely do not.
Captain McCarleys Credibility: Captain McCarley was the commanding officer of the
commando company on the ground and appeared and spoke five times during the initial
broadcast. The AK Report states that more prominence should have been given to
Captain McCarley. The AK Report ignores totally the facts (1) that because McCarley
was wounded early Van Buskirk, not McCarley, led the attack on the base camp, called
for the gas (the baddest of the bad), and was chosen to brief General Creighton
Abrams on the operation, (2) that McCarley made numerous contradictory statements
regarding the gas, including [i]t very well could have been nerve gas, not referred to in
the AK Report, and (3) that McCarley stands ready to deny that the US military was ever
in Laos at all, stating in an on-camera interview that:
IF OPERATING ACROSS BORDER [INTO LAOS] IS CONSIDERED
UNETHICAL OR DENIABLE, THEN I RECKON IM DENYING IT.
In other words, McCarley stands ready to deny everything relating to operations in Laos
by the U.S. military. This pronouncement, nowhere referred to in the AK Report, cuts to
the very heart of McCarleys lack of credibility on Tailwind. It is worthy of note, given the
allegations that we fell in love with the story and minimized contradictory information,
that we chose not to emphatically discredit McCarley and omitted from the broadcast his

1 With respect to off-camera interviews, the quotes reflect the exact words as set forth in the
reporters notes.
4

statement of deniability of all matters pertaining to Laos.

Medic Roses Credibility: Similarly, the AK Report states that our failure to use the
medic, Gary Rose, in the broadcast is troubling. The AK Report uncritically refers to
Roses post-broadcast remarks that the gas was CS tear gas. As with McCarley,
information undermining Roses credibility on this issue is entirely ignored by the AK
Report. In fact, Rose initially adamantly denied that any gas at all was used at all on
extraction from Operation Tailwind and stated that the only reason he donned his gas
mask on the extraction was to protect his face from crap kicked up by the helicopters
blades. In that initial interview, Rose said that earlier on in the day, prior to extraction,
there had been a liquid gas that burned like hell and may have been a liquid version of
CS. In later conversations, he changed his position, saying that the gas was
incapacitating, that a liquid gas was used on extraction that was a lot stronger than
CS gas, and was definitely not CS gas. He said it was awful stuff. Rose also said that
he was not saying the gas couldnt be GB, that maybe he was far enough away to not
get a heavy dose of it, that his physiology might be somewhat resistant to it and that the
tall elephant grass might have filtered it out. This was the state of Roses information at
the time of the broadcast. Against this background, we decided not to invite Rose for an
on-camera interview because of his inconsistency. In addition, in the week preceding
the broadcast, Rose told the Associate Producer of the broadcast that he wouldnt have
known what the gas was since he came to the landing zone last as he was with all the
wounded. Furthermore, in a post-broadcast conversation with that Associate Producer,
he made no complaint other than that we had shown the wrong gas mask on the
broadcast (the masks they had used had internal, not external, filters). Rose then
proceeded to volunteer that the broadcast had reminded him that he was told to take
extra atropine (the sarin nerve gas antidote) with him on the mission. Later still after the
broadcast, he finally came to the position mentioned uncritically and without context in
the AK Report that this was, in fact, tear gas. Reading the AK Report, one would believe
that Roses statements were clear, consistent and credible. They were none of these.
Pilot Bishops Statements: One of the Tailwind pilots, Art Bishop stated that he
believes he dropped tear gas, not nerve gas. The AK Report states that the pilot Art
Bishop strongly disputed the proposition that he might not have known what gas he
was flying. However, in an e-mail to April Oliver (not referenced by the AK Report),
Bishop states, it could have been popcorn that he was flying on Tailwind. Two Air
Force commanders told us that the pilots would have no need to know what they were
carrying. In an off-camera interview, Bishop also says in relation to the possibility that
someone was flying nerve gas, Who am I to say it isnt true. He goes on to say, as I
recall the story we were given was that it was tear gas. If we had nerve gas at NKP, it
would have been really hard to take care of. I never heard about it. Course there was
tight security there. And you can never really go by what you are told. We included
Bishops statement that he was briefed and believed it was tear gas in the report sent to
CNN in Atlanta. Against our most forceful protests, Bishops statement was taken out of
our final cut by CNN executives in Atlanta due to the time constraints resulting from Rick
Kaplans insertion of a contextual paragraph at the beginning of the broadcast.
Substance was sacrificed by Atlanta management for Mr. Kaplans attempt at color.
(b)UNSUPPORTED PROPOSITIONS. The AK Reports authors attack the information
given by important confirming sources, not based on what the sources said, but based
on unsupported attacks on the sources credibility and one-sided interpretations of what

the sources said.

Moorers Mental Awareness: The AK Report says that Admiral Moorer will be 87 next
month, lives in an assisted-care retirement home and that the authors have concerns
about his age. The clear insinuation is that Admiral Moorer is somehow mentally
impaired by reason of his age and where he lives. For the record, Admiral Moorer lives
with his wife in a luxurious and elegant retirement home. He is healthy and active
enough to play golf. April Oliver has spent many hours with Admiral Moorer, not on the
telephone, but in person in dignified and courteous interviews. She has found him to be
totally lucid with excellent recall of the events of the time. Any reading of the transcripts
or review of his interview on videotape makes that self-evident. Even the AK Report
concedes that Admiral Moorers memory remains satisfactory. His recollection of the
statements he had made to Oliver was so accurate, in fact, that he was able to challenge
the one word in the draft text of the broadcast with which he took issue. The Admiral
correctly recalled that he had not used the word scores to describe the number of
American defectors in Vietnam he in fact had said that [23] is too low and [300] too
high. He subsequently agreed that scores was an acceptable paraphrase. Admiral
Moorers telephone manner does not lend itself to the quick-reaction daily journalism that
requires an immediate five second soundbite, and it is hardly surprising that he has not
been called on by CNN to comment on ongoing issues since the early 1990s as he has
been retired for over twenty years. Contrary to the AK Report, this is not a credibility
issue. We invite journalists to read Moorers statements and review his videotaped
interview and reach their own conclusions as to his clarity of mind and memory. If the
authors of the AK Report have any evidence at all that suggests that Admiral Moorer is
mentally infirm or feeble, they should abide by the same standards they espouse in the
AK Report and come forward with it. Otherwise, they should not seek to discredit him
with this type of insinuation, which has taken on a life of its own in the press.
Van Buskirks Repressed Memory: The AK Report states as uncontroverted fact that
Lieutenant Van Buskirk has, in spectacularly self-destructive fashion, stated that he had
repressed memory syndrome which he only overcame while speaking with Oliver. The
AK Report goes on to state that recent reports that [Van Buskirk] attributes to repressed
memory his previous failure to recall the encounter with defectors as he now describes it
makes continued reliance upon him all the more problematic." This allegation appears
to arise from a third party report by Newsweek magazine. Van Buskirk calls it
hogwash.
We do not know, but would be interested to learn, what steps were taken by the authors
of the AK Report to confirm the accuracy of Newsweeks report. We would hope that
they checked this allegation thoroughly before setting it forth in a publicly issued report
with such radical consequences, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case.
Elementary inquiries or investigation would have raised serious questions about the
allegations accuracy.
The notes from the first cold call made by Oliver to Van Buskirk in October 1997 make it

clear that he did not suffer from repressed memory. In that call he references both his
killing of a Caucasian who cursed at him in perfect English and the use of a lethal nerve
gas. In that initial cold call, Van Buskirk stated that the Caucasian who cursed in English
was a Russian adviser, but in later conversations stated that he believed then and now
that the Caucasian was, in fact, an American. This is not something he might be thought
likely to reveal in an initial cold call given, as he later revealed, that his commander had
told him not to discuss the incident, not to include the killing in his after action report and
that the Caucasian was probably a Russian with perfect English.
Newsweek reporter, Evan Thomas, wrote the article alleging that Van Buskirk suffered
from repressed memory. We have been told by Thomas that Van Buskirk answered
affirmatively a question put to him by Thomas in which Thomas (not Van Buskirk)
introduced the term repressed memory. By the AK Reports own standards (which it
appears to apply selectively), and by any reasonable standard, this falls far short of
being a statement by Van Buskirk that he suffers from repressed memory.
Our Deeply Held Beliefs. The authors of the AK Report state, without any support
whatsoever, that the thesis of the Tailwind broadcast reflected our deeply held beliefs.
Messrs. Abrams and Kohler have never spoken to us about this proposition of theirs
which we find to be an offensive slur on our journalistic integrity. We did not have a
thesis with respect to Tailwind. The broadcast reflected deeply researched reporting
rather than our beliefs. We reported what numerous men all along the chain of
command told us.
(c)
ONE-SIDED INTERPRETATIONS. The AK Report is littered with one-sided
interpretations. We will cite three examples here:
What McCarley Said: The AK Report cites the accuracy of April Olivers notes with
great approval, and, indeed, relies upon many of those passages as a basis for our
criticism of the broadcast. McCarley is the only interviewee to our knowledge who
denies he said what is in Olivers contemporaneous notes of his interview. Rather than
acknowledging that McCarleys denials cast doubts upon his credibility, and
notwithstanding the authors willingness to pass judgment on the credibility of Van
Buskirk and Moorer on far less evidence, the authors of the AK Report feel unable to
pass judgment on this issue. Further and even more egregiously, despite this purported
inability to pass judgment, the AK Report goes on to set forth McCarleys post-broadcast
position without referencing and contrasting that position to Olivers contemporaneous
notes. These notes include McCarleys statements:
It very well could have been nerve gas. It wouldnt surprise me to find out that
a lethal nerve gas was used. It is very possible [that nerve gas was used]. I
cant confirm or deny. I would have no problems with it being used.
None of these statements is referenced anywhere in the AK Report.
Van Buskirks Book: The authors conclude that Van Buskirks book mentions a gas,
arguably in terms inconsistent with sarin. Although we place no weight on the
description of the gas in the book (which is about Van Buskirks voyage of personal
discovery and devotes only one chapter of 25 pages describing the events of Operation
Tailwind), the gas symptoms actually described there (nausea, bending over and
vomiting) are more consistent with sarin, and more arguably inconsistent with tear gas

dispersed in an open area.

Confidential Source: Taking another example, we invite journalists to read the quotes
from a confidential source set forth on pages 26 and 27 of this Rebuttal (and in the AK
Report, pp. 36 38), and to ask themselves whether any fair reading of that passage
demonstrates the source may be responding in a hypothetical fashion as the authors
conclude. This is an extraordinary conclusion.
(d)
MISREPRESENTATIONS:
The AK Report contains a number of
misrepresentations of information. One flagrant example is set forth in this introduction.
Van Buskirks Supposed Reference in Early Interviews to Tear Gas: The AK Report
states that in early interviews:
Van Buskirk repeatedly refers to the gas as CBU-19 which, as he acknowledges,
was a tear gas weapon.
In later interviews, the AK Report states, [Van Buskirk] appears to become more certain
of the lethal nature of the gas used. This, they conclude, damages his credibility. This
is an extraordinary misrepresentation of what Van Buskirk said in his early interviews,
and calls into question the bona fides of the AK Report. The following are some quotes
from Van Buskirk in his initial cold call interview with April Oliver:
I didnt really talk about the gas [in my book] because it was too top secret. It
was delivered in CBU-19s. That stuff they put in the CBU-19s it made us sick.
The rest of the enemy all died from the gas. Oh, yeah, it was lethal war gas.
Course they dont tell us too much.
In the same initial cold call interview, he also describes the symptoms of those exposed
to the gas in some detail, including a description of the enemy laying down to die.
My unit puked their brains out. We all got amoebic dysentery. Everyones nose
ran and all this mucous started coming out of everyones nostrils. Lots of enemy
started having seizures.
These are not tear gas symptoms.
It is absolutely clear that in this initial cold call Van Buskirk is talking about a lethal gas.
He is not talking about tear gas and later changing his story to lethal gas, as the AK
Report asserts.
[Note: At a meeting in October 1997 after the initial cold call, Van Buskirk took April
Oliver aside and told her that the call sign wasnt 19, it was more like CBU 15 or 16. The
confusion may have arisen because of the militarys subordinate designation of sarin
nerve gas, BLU-19.]

3.

ONE-SIDED REPORTING?

Perhaps the strongest single criticism of the broadcast by the AK Report was that CNN
presented views consistent with its own conclusions and neglected or minimized
conflicting views. The AK Report accuses us of being guilty of journalistic overkill, a
baseless accusation that we totally reject. The Tailwind broadcasts were based upon
confirmations, corroborations and additional support from our multiple sources, including
soldiers on the ground, pilots and senior commanders in a position to know what
transpired in Operation Tailwind. These sources spoke clearly and openly in spite of
having every reason for denial.
The AK Report authors feel competent to judge, without having interviewed either of us
on the subject and ignoring indications to the contrary (such as our refusal to
emphatically discredit Captain McCarley with his own words and our attempts to include
the pilot, Bishop), that the broadcast reflected our deeply held beliefs. This has led to
unfounded allegations in the media (and even, most extraordinarily, from Rick Kaplan,
President of CNN America, who approved the broadcast) that we fell in love with the
story. This is simply not true. We are experienced journalists who are agnostics with
respect to each and every story we report. In September 1997, April Oliver produced a
story very favorable to the Studies and Observations Group (SOG) which was widely
greeted with approval by the US military. After that broadcast, a Pentagon press official
called to compliment the program as a tribute to men of courage. We repeat - in the
Tailwind broadcasts we intentionally omitted information that would have destroyed the
credibility of McCarley. In addition, we included Bishops statement in the final cut sent
to Atlanta. With this story, as with others, we followed the leads where they took us and
uncovered the confirming, corroborating and supporting information upon which the story
was based.
We have always been aware of contradictory information regarding nerve gas and
defectors. We sought interviews with many who might contradict the story, including
former National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger (he did not return our calls or letters),
former CIA Director Richard Helms (who said he did not know anything about it), former
SOG commander, John Sadler (who told us our request, one of four, was in the trash
can), and a former CIA station chief (who did not want to go on camera). Had any of
these potential sources spoken, their views would have been aired. (A list of those
approached is set forth in Attachment 1 to this Rebuttal).
We provided a 156-page briefing book summarizing for senior CNN management the
sourcing basis for the broadcast. That briefing book contained a 35-page section
discussing those individuals who claimed either that nerve gas was not used or that the
mission was not to kill American defectors. We made it clear to CNN management that
the report would be very controversial and we wrote a three page memorandum to
management at CNN and Time magazine specifically outlining the individuals and
groups likely to criticize the broadcast. We requested one hour in which to present the
story, both pro and con, in a fuller form, but were told by the broadcasts executive
producer and first deputy that it would have to be a magazine report running fourteen
minutes. In the end it was given eighteen minutes.
The briefing book was sent to Executive Producer, Pamela Hill, in Atlanta for distribution
to CNN senior management, including CNN CEO, Tom Johnson, CNN America
President, Rick Kaplan, and CNN Senior Vice President and General Counsel and coauthor of the AK Report, David Kohler. All were fully aware of the controversial nature of
the story and the likely outcry and nevertheless approved the broadcast.

As the newly emerging criticisms of the story built after the broadcast, Rick Kaplan on
Thursday, June 18, 1998 said that we should now produce a one-hour broadcast to
present the opposing views of Tailwind. We stood ready with our colleagues on
NewsStand to produce that broadcast. Rick Kaplan subsequently directed us to drop
that project.
In a June 18 meeting, Rick Kaplan said this was a public relations problem, not a
journalism problem and that he did not want this controversy to progress to
congressional hearings with 3,000 members of the establishment on one side of the
room and CNN and members of the Special Forces on the other. During that same
meeting, Kaplan and Johnson expressed their concern about the pressure they were
receiving from Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell and the threat of a cable boycott by
veterans groups.
During that time, Kaplan and Johnson gagged us from publicly defending the broadcast,
and pulled Pamela Hill and Jack Smith from a scheduled appearance on CNNs
Reliable Sources program. Nevertheless, CNN continued to air unopposed criticism
about the broadcast without any fairness or balance on the Reliable Sources program
and with a news report from the Special Forces convention.
During the same period, Tom Johnson ordered us to the Pentagon to assist the
Pentagons Public Affairs Office with its investigation of Operation Tailwind. That
meeting took place on Monday, June 22.
In the end, we were fired.
We stand by our reporting and producing of both Tailwind stories.

10

CONTENT OF THE AK REPORT

INTRODUCTION
The AK Report sets forth its basic conclusion that although the broadcast was prepared
after exhaustive research, was rooted in considerable supportive data, and reflected the
deeply held beliefs of the CNN journalists who prepared it, the central thesis of the
broadcast could not be sustained at the time of the broadcast itself and cannot be
sustained now and that CNNs conclusion that United States troops used nerve gas
during the Vietnamese conflict on a mission in Laos designed to kill American defectors
is insupportable. (AK Report, pp. 1-2, emphasis added).
The AK Reports conclusions misrepresent the story. The story neither contained a
thesis, nor reached a conclusion. Rather, consistent with our role as journalists, our
report told the stories that were told to us. Throughout our report, we made clear that
the story was based on statements by soldiers, airmen and military officials.
Furthermore, we, the producers of the story, disagree with the AK Reports conclusion
and with numerous particulars set forth in the AK Report. The AK Report is based on an
inadequate and one-sided investigation and a misrepresentation of the information relied
on by us. We are journalists. We followed up on leads, took them wherever they led us,
and received confirmation, corroboration and support for the two central points of the
broadcast: the use of nerve gas on Operation Tailwind and the mission of killing
American defectors. This was not the argument of a thesis or the statement of a
conclusion; it was what the men with knowledge of the operation and the secret war in
Laos told us. As the AK Report notes:
Men engaging in such activities, even under orders, would be unlikely to
disclose them. When those same people have been trained to participate in
black operations and to conceal those operations long after they were concluded,
the process of newsgathering about them is all the more difficult. (AK Report, p.
4)
Following the shallow conclusions of the AK Report and CNNs actions, such reporting
will henceforth be far more difficult.

ADMIRAL THOMAS MOORER

Admiral Moorer by his words and actions stands as a confirming source for the use of
nerve gas on Tailwind and the killing of defectors as the missions objective. Any

11

sequential, common sense reading of Admiral Moorers three interviews makes that
perfectly clear.
A sequential reading of Admiral Moorers transcripts shows that when he first met with
April Oliver he was uncertain how much he wanted to cooperate or divulge. In his
second interview, he provided more information and gave the following confirmation:
Q.

So isnt it fair to say in light of all this, everything weve talked about, that Tailwind
proved that CBU-15 GB is an effective weapon?

A.

Yes, I think, but I think that was already known. Otherwise it never would have
been manufactured.

Then, in his third interview in May 1998, Admiral Moorer provided still further information
and added a further chain of confirmations (these are set forth below, since they are not
referenced in the AK Report).
Admiral Moorer became a four-square confirming source on June 2, 1998, when, in the
presence of April Oliver, he read and approved the script which plainly stated that he
confirmed nerve gas use and killing defectors. This final approval by Admiral Moorer
exceeds any normal journalistic standard of confirmation.
Admiral Moorer read and approved the story.
Admiral Moorer stands as a confirming source.

Admiral Moorers Credibility

The authors of the AK Report state that Admiral Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff at the time of Tailwind will be 87 next month and lives in an assistedcare retirement home. They state that CNN itself ceased calling on Admiral Moorer to
appear to comment on ongoing issues in the early 1990s, and CNNs Pentagon
correspondent raised this credibility issue before the broadcast. [emphasis added] The
AK Report goes on to state that the authors have concerns about his age. (AK Report,
p15)
This is an extraordinary character assassination which seems to be based on nothing
more than Moorers age and a consequent unsubstantiated credibility issue. Admiral
Moorer has been retired for over twenty years. It is therefore hardly surprising that he
has not been asked to comment on ongoing issues since the early 1990s. In addition,
Admiral Moorer does not have a telephone manner for the type of quick-reaction daily
journalism that requires an immediate five second soundbite.
We would be very interested to hear any evidence the authors of the AK Report have
relating to Admiral Moorers credibility or mental capacity. If they have none, they should

12

not seek to discredit him with this type of malignant insinuation, which has taken on a life
of its own in the press.
April Oliver spent many hours with Admiral Moorer, nearly all of it in person, and found
him to be totally lucid with excellent recall of the events during the Vietnam War. Even
the authors of the AK Report concede that his memory remains satisfactory. In
addition, he is healthy and strong enough to play golf.
His memory and lucidity are in fact excellent, as any reading of his statements or review
of his videotaped interview will show. His recollection of the statements he had made to
Oliver were so accurate that he challenged the one word with which he took issue in the
script of the broadcast. The Admiral correctly recalled that he had not used the word
scores to describe the number of American defectors in Vietnam he in fact had said
that [23] is too low and [300] too high. After discussing the word scores with Oliver,
he confirmed that scores accurately reflected his estimate of the numbers of defectors.
The simple truth is that Admiral Moorer is a highly respected and distinguished retired
military commander who was running the war in Vietnam at the time of Operation
Tailwind and has excellent recall of the events of the time.
What Admiral Moorer Said
The AK Report states that Admiral Moorer was not the powerful advocate for the
programs central thesis that it repeatedly suggests. The AK Report states that [v]iewed
as a whole, Admiral Moorer simply does not come close to offering the sort of support for
the conclusions offered by CNN that the program asserts that he does. (AK Report, p.
16).
The AK Report then proceeds to quote at length (AK Report, pp. 16-28) from April
Olivers initial interviews with Admiral Moorer (one off camera in December 1997, and
the second on camera in January 1998). It quotes these passages out of sequential
order so that their meaning is distorted. The AK Report concludes that [t]aken as a
whole, these passages cannot be said to constitute confirmation of the CNN broadcast.
(AK Report, p. 24). These passages include Admiral Moorers confirming statement set
forth above, and nothing that precedes or follows such statement indicates that this was
not a confirmation. This dismissal of Admiral Moorers confirmation of the use of nerve
gas and the killing of defectors is a conclusion lacking an explanation.
We did not, however, rely solely on this confirmation. We also relied on Admiral
Moorers May off-camera interview and his reading and approval of the CNN script and
the Time story to present him as a confirming source for our report. These are barely
referenced in the AK Report. It is worthy of note, also, that even after the controversy
arose after the broadcast, Admiral Moorer reaffirmed his confirmations three more times
orally and once more in a written statement.
Certain confirmations received from Admiral Moorer were referenced in the AK Report.
Others were not.

13

Confirmations by Admiral Moorer Referenced in the AK Report

The AK Report gives only passing reference to the following important exchange from
the January 1998 interview, which is Admiral Moorers on-camera confirmation
(emphasis added):
Q.

So isnt it fair to say in light of all this, everything weve talked about, that Tailwind
proved that CBU-15 GB is an effective weapon?

A.

Yes, I think, but I think that was already known. Otherwise it never would have
been manufactured.

The AK Report also gives only passing reference to Moorers statement in his May 1998
interview when asked whether killing these defectors was the mission, Yeah, I have no
doubt about that. The full exchange (not quoted in the AK Report) is as follows;
Q.

So killing these defectors was the mission? And it was done to protect American
lives?

A.

Yeah, I have no doubt about that. Now I was not looking through the field
glasses. But I assume the information was corroborated somewhere and that the
recon teams saw what they saw.

Q.

And then the correct decision in your view was to eliminate them?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Why not capture them?

A.

Well you would have to examine that possibility. You would have to see if it was
possible to capture them and bring them out. If it was impossible, then you cant
leave them out there. You would have to eliminate them.

Q.

And elimination was successful in this case?

A.

Yes. But again I do not remember exactly, but I do not think there was just one
such incident. That there was a large group makes it a big incident. But again I
do not remember the specifics of this action. I was aware of the fact that there
was this objective in Laos.

14

Confirmations by Admiral Moorer Not Referenced in the AK Report

The following exchanges were inexplicably totally omitted from the AK Report, which
quoted other portions of interviews liberally and with the AK Reports subjective
emphasis:
From the December 1997 off-camera interview, the AK Report quoted an extract of the
following exchange, which we have set forth more fully here, with the sections selected
by the AK Report in italics and the section omitted by the AK Report underlined. (AK
Report, p. 27-28):
Q.

I think there is [sic] some historic issues at play here. If the US used nerve gas
in combat in Vietnam, it is worthy to report. And it has some important policy
implications for today, with the debate over the chemical weapons convention.

A.

Treaties will never stop people from using this weapon. But you have said the
important word history. And that I can respect.
You have to use every resource in your command to win. The U.S. is the garden
spot of the world and people here dont understand how others live, or what it
can take to win. I would have used any weapon, any tactic and any move to
defend the security of the United States.

Q.

So that would include GB, weaponized in the U.S. arsenal. We know there was
four million pounds of it manufacturedand that it was stored at NKP.

A.

(Nods yes). But you are not going to report that we were using some illegal
weapon are youbecause remember it wasnt technically illegal yet

The following segment DIRECTLY follows the section quoted by the AK Report at the
bottom of page 28 of the AK Report, but gives a very different impression to the selective
quotes used by the AK Report:
Q.

Let me ask you this, in the interest of history, do you think it was a mistake not to
get it [the use of nerve gas in Vietnam] out in the open earlier.It is seen as so
taboo now, and it is hard for people even to discuss

A.

No! Not at all! And of course it is not so unique. The Germans used chlorine
and other chemicals. The public at large found that horrible. And they would find
this horrible too. I dont think it should have come out any earlier.

Q.

We are going to report the U.S. used nerve gas in combat during Tailwind. Will
we be correct in saying this was the first time the U.S. used it?

A.

You might want to qualify that a bit.

Q.

How?

15

A.

Well, I am not so familiar with the European theater. But I think there might have
been a few isolated pockets where poison gas was used.

Q.

You mean in World War II?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Really?

A.

Yes, I think so.

Q.

So we would be okay in saying first time in the Vietnam war?

A.

Yes, I think so.

Incredibly, the AK Report makes no reference to this.

And later, in the May interview:
Q.

So you didnt know the details about this operation before?

A.

I did not before. Afterwards, yeah.

Q.

Was it your understanding that the SOG team achieved their objective?

A.

I dont know about [the word] achieve. I knew about the problem. And I knew
when the operation was finished. I didnt analyze the details. There was no
hooray, hooray, weve won again.

Q.

Now, about the mission completed. Its got to be a difficult choice. On the one
hand, those defectors are somebodys father or child. On the other hand they
are a huge military headache and need to be taken care of. Is there a moral
choice here, any ambivalence?

A.

I think the second attitude you describe is more like it. When you go into a fight it
is life or death. You cant ease up on an operation. You cant go in with
sentiment. You cant go in with no drive and aggression. If you are going in and
need to do a job, you really have to put your heart and soul into it. Otherwise you
might get yourself killed if you are fighting only halfway. I suspect in general you
participate tooth and nail.

Q.

So you were aware the problem had been taken care of?

A.

I dont think I was ever given an after action report about that particular incident.
After all these were only 10 or 15 soldiers out of 100,-000 or so. I do not
remember the specifics. I do remember that it was executed, and it was finished.

Q.

How can you be sure there were not POWs there? The hatchet force team was
told to go in and shoot anything that moves. They wouldnt be told that if there

16

were POWs there, would they?

A.

Now you are getting into the rules of engagement. Every combat force gets
information on the rules of engagement. We had terrible rules of engagement
during the Vietnam War. The rules of engagement tell you who to shoot and who
not to shoot. Sometimes it comes down that alright, all targets are okay.

Q.

And it must have been concluded that the target in this case were all defectors
and not POWs?

A.

Lets say that they were evaluated and the conclusion was reached that they
were defectors.

Q.

On this specific operation [Tailwind]?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Is our number of about 15 defectors killed about right?

A.

I do not know for sure. You will have to talk to someone who was there. I do not
know if there were 20 or 15. But there was a group.

Bear in mind that none of this was referred to in the AK Report which stated that
Admiral Moorer simply does not come close to offering the sort of support for the
conclusions offered by CNN that the program asserts that he does.
From later in the May interview (the following passage is also NOT referenced by the AK
Report):
Q.

Weve been told, including by Singlaub [Major General John K. Singlaub, the
chief SOG commanding officer in Saigon from 1966 to 1968], that killing
defectors, that defectors were always a top priority target for SOG.

A.

Yes, I think so. You can rely on Singlaub. He was heavy into this from the start.
He would have no reason to misinform you. You can believe him. (see quotes
from Singlaub below on page 62 of this Rebuttal).

Q.

But the conventional forces might be more apt to take a defector prisoner [than
SOG]

A.

Its on a case by case basis. You get into the PR game here. You cant have
soldiers writing home, dear mom, yesterday I saw a defector and he was
American but we had to shoot him. That would hit the papers sooner or later and
LBJ would be mad.

Q.

So a big PR problem?

A.

Sure.

Q.

So this was sensitive.

17

A.

Its very sensitive subject matter. Many mothers and fathers do not believe their
sons would defect. If you kill a defector its a big PR problem.

Q.

Because of the PR problem with defectors, that is why this operation [Tailwind]
was given to a black operation like SOG?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Isnt [it] unusual to conduct such a large operation against a large group of
defectors?

A.

Yeah.

Later in the May interview the following exchange occurs:

Q.

I know this is a bit exacting, but I just want to make sure we know what we are
talking about here. CBU-15 is GB is sarin is nerve gas. Agreed?

A.

I think everybody knows that.

Q.

Not everybody. Not some of the men on the ground. They know GB but they
dont know its sarin. Think they are just playacting?

A.

I think everyone associated with those kinds of weapons knows their effects.

Moorer goes on to demonstrate a detailed operational knowledge of the tactics deployed

in using sarin nerve gas on search and rescue (SAR) missions.
The interview then goes on:
Q.

One pilot told me he flew the weapon [sarin nerve gas] 15 different times. There
are 60 or so pilots at NKP who fly A1s. Could this weapon have been used more
than a hundred times?

A.

I dont have the figure.

Q.

But it was used a lot?

A.

Then again did that pilot use it every time he flew it.

Q.

I dont know.

A.

Well I can comfortably say that if a pilot was involved in a SAR operation, then he
probably flew it. I think it could be useful in a lot of these operations. I am not
aware of how many times it was used.

And later in the interview:

Q.

But it was always available on SARs?

18

A.

By and large it was available yup. Whether or not it could be carried as easily as
a 500 pound bomb, I dont know.

The following exchange then takes place:

Q.

We have heard the weapon [sarin nerve gas] was generally available from 69 to
70.

A.

I do not know the exact dates of the weapon in the area. I am not aware
specifically. Let me say this. It was definitely available in the Vietnam War. This
is a much bigger operation than you realize. It takes authorization to move the
weapon into southeast Asia. That is only one step. And there are many steps to
make it available to the pilots.

Moorer goes on to state, that [I]f the weapon could save American lives, I would never
hesitate to use it and the following exchange takes place:
Q.

And it did save American lives in Laos.

A.

Yes, uh hum.

How many American lives were saved by this weapon [sarin nerve gas]?

A.

I would not want to speculate on that.

Q.

Estimate? 100 or more?

A.

Well, it wasnt used every time a helicopter was shot down. I dont know.

Q.

Was it ever used in South Vietnam?

A.

I do not recall using it in South Vietnam.

NONE of these passages is even referenced in the AK Report. In fact, the AK Report
incorrectly states in a footnote on page 32 (emphasis added):
As noted earlier, Admiral Moorer said that he believed that chemical weapons
should be available for use in wartime, not that CBU-15 [sarin nerve gas] had
been used. (emphasis added). This is incorrect: see quotes from Admiral
Moorer on pages 13 to 19 of this Rebuttal.
We find that conclusion extraordinary on any fair and full reading of the transcripts, even
without regard to Admiral Moorers pre- and post-broadcast approvals, and his later
statement in which he said:
I did not authorize the use of Sarin gas by U.S. military forces during Operation
Tailwind in Laos in September 1970. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at
the time, I had no documents, operational orders, after action reports or
knowledge of the use of Sarin. However, later, in general discussions, I learned
of the operation, including verbal statements indicating the use of Sarin on the
19

Tailwind mission.

Admiral Moorers Approval of the Broadcast

Supplementing all of Admiral Moorers prior confirmations in his interviews is his
subsequent approval of the entire script for the broadcast, an extraordinary journalistic
step to assure accuracy. The script Admiral Moorer read clearly states that Moorer
confirmed that nerve gas was used in Tailwind and that Moorer acknowledged in an offcamera interview that Tailwinds target was indeed defectors. This approval took place
six days before the broadcast, and Admiral Moorer spent approximately twenty to thirty
minutes reviewing both the script and the Time magazine article prior to approving them.
The AK Report states that Moorer now claims he had it in his hands for about five
minutes - - I thumbed through it, but I didnt read it. That is simply not accurate and we
are unaware of the circumstances in which and the person to whom Admiral Moorer
allegedly made this statement. Messrs. Abrams and Kohler should state who gave them
that information. Was it Moorer himself? Or is it another third party report? Admiral
Moorer did in fact spend approximately 20 to 30 minutes reading the script and the Time
magazine article. Admiral Moorers careful reading of the script is evidenced by his
comment regarding the use of the word scores, before agreeing that this was an
appropriate way to paraphrase his response.
After Admiral Moorer had reviewed and approved the script, April Oliver offered to bring
a final cut of the TV report for him to screen before it went to air. Admiral Moorer replied
that that was not necessary.
What more definitive confirmation can there be than a confirmation of the accuracy of
the script by a source reading and agreeing with its content? This is given passing and
dismissive reference in the AK Report as a potential confirmation. As any journalist
knows, when a source is given a read-back of what he says and agrees with its
accuracy, that constitutes a hard confirmation.
Admiral Moorer was contacted by the Pentagon after the broadcast. On Monday, June
8, 1998, the day after the broadcast aired, the Pentagon faxed him a statement, headed
Statement by Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (ret.), which said:
In my discussions with CNN I did not confirm the use of sarin gas by U.S.
military forces during Operation Tailwind in Laos in September 1970. As
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, I had no documents, operational
orders, after action reports or knowledge of the use of Sarin.
In our presence, Admiral Moorer amended this statement to say:
I did not authorize the use of Sarin gas [rather than the suggested wording on
the Pentagon fax, In my discussions with CNN I did not confirm the use of Sarin
gas] by U.S. military forces during Operation Tailwind in Laos in September
1970. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, I had no documents,
operational orders, after action reports or knowledge of the use of Sarin.

20

However, I later learned of the operation, including the use of nerve gas on the
mission.
Clearly Admiral Moorer himself knew that he had confirmed the use of sarin gas to CNN,
even if the authors of the AK Report do not. The authors of the AK Report inexplicably
make no reference to this amendment.
After Admiral Moorer had amended the statement to read as set forth above, he went to
make a telephone call with the revised fax in hand. When he returned, we observed that
he had penned in the word rumors in the statement wile he was gone. After discussing
what he had heard about the use of Sarin on Tailwind, Admiral Moorer agreed that these
were not rumors.
Admiral Moorer then re-drafted the statement, amending this sentence to read:
However, later, in general discussions I learned of the operation, including verbal
statements indicating the use of Sarin on the Tailwind mission.
At this post-broadcast meeting with us on June 8, 1998, Admiral Moorer AGAIN three
times reconfirmed that sarin nerve gas was used on Operation Tailwind and more widely
for search and rescue missions.
Jack Smiths notes of that meeting with Admiral Moorer, after the broadcast had aired
and Moorer had been in contact with the Pentagons Public Affairs Office, include the
following passages:
AM [Admiral Moorer] said that based on our report people he was hearing from
were construing that he confirmed the use of sarin on TW [Tailwind] and in the
SARs [Search and Rescue missions] as his authorizing its use on these
missions, i.e., that he gave the orders directly to drop the gas.
This he did not do directly order or authorize its use he told us. The order for
its use came from the commanders on the ground in the theater in the heat of
battle. AM said he only came to learn of sarin being used at a later date while
he was still the Chman of the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff].
AM said that since it was 28 years ago he could not remember who at the time
told him that sarin had been used.
AM three times during our time with him said he did indeed confirm to AO [April
Oliver] that sarin NG [nerve gas] was used on TW and more widely for S&Rs.
AM emphasized that because he was the one on camera confirming the use of
sarin, people were construing that he was the commander who authorized its use
and ordered it dropped and that was what was bothering him because he was
not the commander who was directly involved on TW again he repeated it was
the commander on the ground who gave the order. AM said people would now
believe that he gave the order to drop poison gas.
AO and I reviewed w. AM that he had read carefully the script which had written
in it that he confirmed that nerve gas was used in TW. AM agreed that he had
confirmed it and had read his confirmation in the script and agreed with the

21

accuracy of that statement when he read it before we broadcast the story.

But now he was being construed to be the one who ordered the poison gas
dropped and he wanted to clarify that he was NOT so he gave us the statement
the written statement which is attached.
With respect to Admiral Moorers insertion of the word rumors in his statement, Jack
Smiths notes of the meeting of June 8, 1998 include the following:
I said didnt his people officers report to him the use of sarin. He said not in
the strictest definition of a military report. He said the topic of nerve gas being
used was talked about and discussed but not strictly in a military sense formally
reported. I said to him that would not constitute rumors & AM agreed. AM said
there were verbal statements regarding the use of sarin NG and his statement so
reflects.
Against this background, the authors of the AK Report state that Admiral Moorers prebroadcast review of the script and the post-broadcast statement must be given some
weight, but conclude that Admiral Moorer simply does not come close to offering the
sort of support for the conclusions offered by CNN that the program asserts that he
does and that he never provided sufficient support for the broadcast to justify treating
him as a confirming source. (AK Report, p. 16 and p. 31). The AK Report continues
that, Our conclusion, therefore, is that the substance of Admiral Moorers interviews do
not confirm that nerve gas was used in Tailwind or that the Tailwind target was indeed
defectors. (AK Report, p. 31).

In CNNs retraction broadcast on July 5, Mr. Abrams said:

..taken as a whole, I think the answer is, no, he did not confirm, and I think that
was one of the greatest flaws of the broadcast.
This is a mistaken conclusion without foundation in the facts given the repeated
confirmations provided by Admiral Moorer on these issues. We object to the selective
information presented non-sequentially in the AK Report and to the disregard of Admiral
Moorers support for, indeed, his confirmation of, our broadcast. According to any
reasonable standard, his statements in his interviews, his pre-broadcast review and
approval of the script of the broadcast and his post-broadcast statements and
confirmations constitute substantial support for our use of Admiral Moorer as a
confirming source for both of the key points of the broadcast, as well as for the additional
point that sarin gas was widely available for search and rescue operations.

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES
As noted in the AK Report, in order to continue to protect the confidentiality of the
confidential sources supporting the broadcast, certain information about confidential
sources was not set forth in detail in the AK Report. (AK Report, p.1). Likewise, in order

22

to protect our confidential sources, we will not provide specific information regarding
such sources in this document.
The AK Report states that:
confidential sources confirmed, to one degree or another, the validity of CNNs
broadcast.
Taken together, they provided CNNs journalists and news
management with a good deal of comfort with respect to the accuracy of the
broadcast. While that assessment was warranted to some degree, when the
complete record is examined, the degree of reliance was perilous. (AK Report,
p. 31)
MILITARY OFFICIAL
This confidential source is a military official who the AK Report acknowledges has been
highly placed for years, (AK Report, p. 31) and, in the words of the AK Report itself, is
particularly knowledgeable about chemical weaponry, [and] intimately familiar with
nerve agents. (AK Report, p. 7).
This source also has detailed knowledge of
Operation Tailwind and SOG operations. He reviewed and approved the script for the
Tailwind broadcast. His credibility is not attacked by the AK Report.
This confidential source was the original lead for the story. In a telephone call in
September 1997, he acknowledged that an agent stronger than BZ (a hallucinogenic
gas) was used in a mission to assist with the extraction of SOG commandos. He stated
that [g]iven the enemys nature, it [using this agent] was not an unscrupulous thing to
do thereby suggesting the forbidden nature of the weapon used. He said that the
mission was more fully described in a book by John Plaster, a SOG veteran, and gave
the chapter reference, which led us to the Tailwind operation.
This confidential source, like Admiral Moorer, ultimately reviewed and approved the
script for the Tailwind broadcast, giving the thumbs up signal a number of times as he
read it, including in particular with respect to the use of CBU-15 on Operation Tailwind.
With respect to this confidential source, the AK Report states that [w]e have no doubt
that the encouragement of this source properly gave all at CNN a sense of solidity about
the story. This is particularly so since the source read the text of the broadcast in the
presence of the producer and indicated specific approval of the references to CBU-15.
(AK Report, p. 32, emphasis added). The AK Report, however, proceeds to state that
[t]here are serious weaknesses in this confirmation... (AK Report, p.32).
The AK Report attempts to undercut the value of this sources confirmation of the script
of the broadcast by inaccurately suggesting that this source provided only advice and
guidance. In fact he provided specific confirmation that GB (sarin nerve gas) was used
on Operation Tailwind and that killing defectors was always part of SOGs mission.
The AK Report goes on to make the following two assertions.
First, the AK Report claims that [t]he source, during [his final May 1998] meeting,
appeared to be reasoning to the conclusion that it was not BZ used and that it had to be

23

nerve agent used, not basing his support on actual knowledge. (AK Report, p. 33).
This conclusion is inconsistent with the fact that this source was the original lead for the
story, telling April Oliver months before this purported reasoning that an agent stronger
than BZ was used on the mission. Moreover, the fact that during his final May 1998
meeting the source used non-verbal hand signals (i.e., thumbs up) to indicate his
approval of the script of the broadcast suggests that the source was concerned that he
was being taped and that he should be cautious in his verbal statements.
No reference is made to the following exchange from the May 1998 meeting in the AK
Report (emphasis added):
Q.

Offensive use of nerve agent unusual?

A.

I know of only one instance of this, this one [Tailwind]. There could be others but
I dont think it was widespread. (emphasis added)

This exchange represents actual knowledge, not reasoning.

Another exchange suggests knowledge of the specifics of Tailwind (quoting from notes
of the final May 1998 meeting):
Q.

And the CH3 got shot down that was supposed to get the chopper out - [i.e., the
helicopter carrying Colonel Shungle that went down during Operation Tailwind]

A.

Oh you know about that too.

Second, the AK Report states that the reference to Admiral Moorers interview (which
we have concluded cannot be viewed as constituting confirmation) itself may be said to
have tainted the sources ability to view the matter with the same distance that might
otherwise have been the case. (AK Report, p. 33) The exchange at issue with the
confidential source was as follows:
Q.

[Moorer] says that offensive use was justifiable because it saved American lives.

A.

That is probably true.

We do not agree with the AK Reports view that the source may have been tainted by
this reference, for a number of reasons.
First, it does not sit with the fact that in an earlier conversation with April Oliver in
September 1997, the source acknowledged that an agent stronger than BZ
(hallucinogenic gas) was used on this mission and that its use was not an unscrupulous
thing to do. This was before Oliver had conducted any interview of Moorer, let alone
had the opportunity to taint the source with any mention of it.
Second, during the meeting with Oliver in which she referenced Moorers position on
offensive use, the source had already confirmed that GB, not BZ, was used on Tailwind,
before Oliver made the reference to Admiral Moorer.
Third, Admiral Moorers statement mentioned to the confidential source was a general

24

statement regarding the justification of the offensive use of nerve gas, not a reference to
Moorers confirmation that it was used on Operation Tailwind, as suggested by the AK
Report.
Fourth, this was a very well placed source who would be unlikely to be influenced so
easily by such a brief and unspecific exchange. He is in a position to know the details of
chemical weapons use in Laos and elsewhere during the Vietnam War, and his depth of
knowledge was confirmed by SOG sources.
Finally, the representation by Oliver regarding Moorers position was accurate. This
accuracy is shown, for example, by the following exchange from the May, 1998 interview
with Admiral Moorer:
Q: And so prepping the camp with gas was part of the battle plan?
A: Fundamentally, what you described is aimed at saving American lives. I have
no problem with it. So is collecting intelligence, eliminating defectors. I come
back to the point if an operation is necessary to keep the losses of Americans
to an absolute minimum, and if that capability ensures a significant reduction or
elimination of American casualties, I'd use it."
The AK Report states that [a]t the very least, the degree of actual knowledge possessed
by the source should have been probed in more depth. (AK Report, p. 33). Again, this
source was in a very well placed position to have factual knowledge about chemical
weapons use during the war in Vietnam and Laos. In the words of the AK Report itself,
this source, particularly knowledgeable about chemical weaponry, was intimately
familiar with nerve agents. (AK Report, p7).
We mention the following other exchanges with this source not referred to in the AK
Report, because they are relevant to the general SOG mission to kill defectors and to
the wider use of CBU-15 (sarin nerve gas). These took place in the interview in May
1998 in which the source gave a thumbs up to the Tailwind script.
When asked whether getting defectors was a part of the SOG mission, the source
replied:
Its a no brainer. You want to kill defectors. They are a huge embarrassment,
particularly in context of the times with the antiwar movement. And they can be a
big military problem, with the codes and language, and working with the
radios. . . .
With respect to killing everything that moves:
What that guy Van Buskirk tells you about anything that moves, no rules of
engagement, is right on target. People dont understand how callous we were in
SOG. There were simply no rules.
With respect to CBU-15 being available for search and rescue missions:
A.

Thats my understanding. You want to make sure the pilot is upwind. And why
not use it, if it gives him a chance. Hes only one guy, theres lots of enemy. If

25

you dont use it, the pilot gets taken, the equipment gets captured. I dont see
anything wrong with it; the pilot has got to know its coming, and will scramble to
the high ground and cover his face if he can. If he doesnt make it, he wouldnt
have made it anyway.

Q.

One A1 pilot told me he was involved in SAR operations and used it as many as
15 times. Multiply that by as many as 60 pilots.

A.

I dont know for sure how widespread it was though, it may be wider than I
realize. Even in SOG, it may have been used more than I know. My friend,
[name intentionally omitted] has told me of one use on a SOG operation. But he
didnt know it was nerve agent beforehand.

This kind of information is not being revealed because of the reference by Oliver to
Admiral Moorers statement that the use of CBU-15 is justifiable to save American lives.
Nor does it demonstrate any reasoning on the part of the source. It demonstrates
knowledge.

FORMER SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL

This confidential source is a former senior military official, intimately familiar with SOG
operations and Tailwind. His intimate knowledge is confirmed by multiple other sources.
His credibility is not attacked by the AK Report.
With respect to this confidential source, the AK Report states that what was said by the
source is doubtless supportive of the broadcast but with some of the same problems we
have seen elsewhere - - a producer overstating her case to the source and a source
responding positively but with ambiguity to the producer. (AK Report, p. 34). As an
example for this assertion, the AK Report quotes from an exchange that included a
reference to letter from the Defense Department. The AK Report states that the
reference to it in an exchange with the source may well have affected the sources view
of the matter. (AK Report, p. 36).
As noted in the AK Report, this exchange occurred after the source had given April
Oliver a good deal of information indicating that he knew a good deal about Tailwind.
(AK Report, p. 35.). In particular, in an earlier interview prior to any mention of the letter,
this source confirmed that CBU-15 was used to prep the area in Tailwind, and that Yes,
absolutely it was effective.
Furthermore, given the highly placed status of this source, we strongly believe that the
reference to the letter did not affect the sources view of the matter. The AK Report itself
states that this source was a former high ranking officer intimately familiar with SOG.
(AK Report, p7). Had he requested to see a copy of the letter, we would have shown it
to him.
With respect to the Defense Department letter itself, no reliance was placed on it by us
for the broadcast, because, based on the copy we were given, we were unable to
determine definitively whether the reference was to CBU-15 or CBU-25 or something

26

else. The digits are too unclear to rely on them.

The AK Report assesses the sources confirmation with the following statement:
On the one hand, the source does state that CBU-15 was used in a covert
operation in Laos. On the other, the source may be responding in a hypothetical
fashion. Then again, the sources general refusal to answer questions directly
may reflect nothing more than the special care used by people trained in
plausible deniability never to put themselves in a position where they can be
damaged by the attribution of views to them. (AK Report, p. 38).
The particular exchange at issue is as follows from the May 1998 interview (we set it out
in full, although it is also set out in the AK Report because the AK Reports conclusions
with respect to it are so far fetched) (emphasis added):

Q.

Was Tailwind unique in the large number of lives that CBU-15 saved?

A.

It was unique because of the agents used. I dont think you can say it was
unique because of the large number of lives saved. It would not have been used
unless it had given us a significant advantage.

Q.

And when you mean agent, you mean CBU-15, GB, right?

A.

Remember it was a major decision to escalate to decide use of that agent. It was
not risk free. But it was felt that it was unlikely that the NVA would complain.
They were not supposed to be in Laos. They were unlikely to come to the United
Nations and complain about the weapon.

Q.

Because it would expose them being in Laos. Thats interesting. I have been
scratching my head about that, about why they didnt say something about this.

A.

Well the NVA said the only troops they had in Laos were the Viet Cong. We
frequently complained about how Sihanouk and others were in fact giving
sanctuary to the NVA.

Q.

Again we are on background here. So it was decided then that the agent CBU15/GB could be used because the Vietnamese were unlikely to complain.

A.

Yes, in a covert operation in Laos.

Q.

Moorer has told us on camera that he never made a point of counting up the
number of times CBU-15 was used. What do you make of that statement?

A.

That it was used on missions at other times than on Tailwind is what I would
interpret that as meaning.

Q.

Do you know how many times?

A.

Nope. I dont know of anyone who would know that accurately.

27

Q.

He has told us that the weapon was by and large available for search and
rescues.was the weapon commonly available for SARs.
Is that your
understanding?

A.

[Intentionally omitted would indicate the sources identity]

Q.

Well I tried to pin Moorer down on dates. We have talked to about thirty A1 pilots
at this point and they talk about using it from 1969 to early 1971. Were you
aware of it being used on SAR missions at this time?

A.

No I do not know of any use of it. [sentence omitted because would reveal
sources identity].

Q.

But we have already established that you know of the use of CBU-15 in this
specific instance, on Tailwind. You have told me that in this conversation and
before.

A.

I am prepared to accept that. Thats something you seem to have right. You
have enough basis to use that.

The AK Report concludes that the source does state that CBU-15 was used in a covert
operation in Laos, but that the source may be responding in a hypothetical fashion.
(AK Report, p. 38). Any common sense reading of that exchange tells one that the
sources response was not hypothetical, and this kind of strained reading by the authors
of the AK Report casts doubt upon their even-handedness.
The AK Report proceeds to state that:
[t]he problem is that the sources responses, although supportive, are
ambiguous. They are, possibly deliberately, blurry. Such responses are not
irrelevant. We repeat that they may properly be viewed as a whole as being
supportive of the broadcast, but they are sufficiently ambiguous that they cannot
be said to provide the full scale support for the broadcast that should have been
demanded before it aired. (AK Report, p. 38).
We disagree with the AK Report. This source confirms that CBU-15 was used on
Operation Tailwind and that the target of Tailwind was defectors (see also the
confirmation set forth below, again not referenced in the AK Report).
After April Oliver reaffirmed that the interview was on background, [background
assures the source of confidentiality with respect to attribution] the May 1998 interview
continued as follows (these exchanges are not referenced by the AK Report):
Q.

So the GB was available in Laos.

A.

No, not in Laos, in Thailand. Both those bases [NKP and Udorn] are in Thailand.

Q.

Right of course. I meant based in Thailand for use on SARs in Laos.

A.

And North Vietnam.

Sometimes American pilots would be shot down in the

28

border area. They were always targets of attack along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
And later:
Q.

We have a 1971 manual of chemical weapons and one of the things that is most
impressive is the vast array of weaponized sarin in the arsenal. It comes in all
forms, CBUs, clam shells, mortars. Was it ever used in these other forms
besides CBUs?

A.

Not that I know of. It was not used in rockets. Honest John had gone out by
then. But it was available in artillery shells. There were medium sized howitzers
that had chemical grounds.

Q.

But there was no artillery in Laos.

A.

There was artillery in Vietnam. But we did not take artillery in on covert ops. We
might take a small mortar in some cases. I do not think they carried chemicals
however.

Q.

Sounds kind of dicey to carry on the ground. So the preferred delivery would by
air? [sic]

A.

Yes, we had control of the air. We could fly low and slow. We didnt have to
worry about radar and MIGs in Laos.

Q.

So CBUs delivered by A1s.

A.

Yeah thats right.

Q.

And the agent we are talking about here is CBU-15/GB?

A.

Right.

And later after Oliver again reaffirms that the source is a blind source:

Q.

So you understood the target of Tailwind to be defectors, and not POWs?

A.

Defectors, yeah.

And later:
Q.

Just one last time, your own personal understanding of Tailwind is that it was a
mission in which CBU-15, GB, was used at least twice on the village base camp
and on extraction, and that the target was a group of American defectors.

A.

You are not going to use my name on this are you?

Q.

No, sir, you are on background as a senior military official.

29

A.

Yeah. Thats my view.

THE MEN OF OPERATION TAILWIND

The AK Report begins with the following acknowledgement: Men engaging in such
activities [use of nerve gas and killing defectors], even under orders, would be unlikely to
disclose them. When those same people have been trained to participate in black
operations and to conceal those operations long after they were concluded, the process
of newsgathering about them is all the more difficult. (AK Report, p. 4).
EUGENE McCARLEY
Captain Eugene McCarley was the commander of the commando company, called a
hatchet force, on Operation Tailwind. The authors of the AK Report state that McCarley
was the leader of the unit being described and had flatly denied the thrust of the
broadcast. His views were entitled to more prominent treatment. The AK Report states
that in an interview with us (and in numerous other interviews since the broadcast)
McCarley has denounced his treatment on the broadcast. He states that after saying
that the use of nerve gas was possible, he then said that it had never been used by any
of his troops, in fact, was not in the Vietnamese theater at all. He said, as well, that the
mission had nothing to do with killing American defectors. (AK Report, pp39-40).
It should be noted that the authors of the AK Report did not, to our knowledge, screen
the videotaped interview with McCarley. If true (and we cannot know for certain because
we were denied the opportunity to meet with Messrs. Abrams and Kohler after they
screened the tapes), we find this surprising, given the amount of emphasis they place on
his information. That videotape shows many extraordinarily long pauses taken by
McCarley in responding to questions, and his averting his eyes, which are not evident by
reference only to the transcript of the interview.
The AK Report, while making unsubstantiated criticisms of the credibility of Admiral
Moorer and Lt. Robert Van Buskirk, makes no reference at all to the state of Captain
McCarleys credibility with respect to Tailwind. The AK Report also states that as the
ground leader of the operation, [McCarleys] views were entitled to significant weight but
does not address the fact that McCarley was not the de facto leader of the operation
because he was wounded early in the mission. Finally, the AK Report misrepresents the
certainty and consistency of McCarleys statements.

McCarleys Credibility
The AK Report selectively ignores certain facts regarding the credibility of McCarleys
statements. If McCarley had claimed that nerve gas was used and defectors were
targeted and we had used him as much as we did (five times), the AK Report would

30

have crucified us.

First, Van Buskirk, not McCarley, was the de facto leader of the mission because
McCarley was wounded early on. It was Van Buskirk who led the attack on the base
camp, called for the gas and was chosen to brief General Creighton Abrams on the
operation. Van Buskirk is described by Corporal Craig Schmidt as the key guy.
Second, Captain McCarley, by his own admission, stands ready to deny that the US
military was ever in Laos, stating in the videotaped interview with him that:
if operating across border [into Laos] is considered unethical or deniable, then I
reckon Im denying it.
This statement of adherence to SOGs code of deniability cuts to the heart of McCarleys
lack of credibility on Tailwind and is not even mentioned in the AK Report.
Third, McCarley has, since the broadcast, made a number of easily demonstrable (by
reference to the tapes and transcripts) misrepresentations about being taken out of
context as well as inconsistent statements regarding the mission itself (some of them to
Messrs. Abrams and Kohler who cite them in the AK Report). For example, he has
asserted that atropine (the nerve gas antidote) was not carried on the mission, which is
inconsistent with the information given by Rose and others on the mission.
It is worthy of note, given CNNs allegations that we fell in love with the story and
minimized contradictory information, that we chose not to emphatically discredit
McCarley, omitting these statements and inconsistencies from the broadcast. It is also
significant to note that the AK Report, while erroneously emphasizing Admiral Moorers
age and Captain Van Buskirks purported (and debunked) repressed memory
syndrome does not consider that these issues relating to McCarleys credibility merit
even a mention. McCarley by his own words will deny anything and everything that
happened in Laos, in keeping with the SOG practice of plausible deniability.
McCarley apparently now also denies making certain statements which are reflected in
April Olivers contemporaneous notes (AK Report, pp. 39-40.) Incredibly, despite these
clear indications of McCarleys lack of credibility with respect to Operation Tailwind and
Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohlers willingness to make many judgments on credibility issues
in their report, the AK Report states that:
[w]hat McCarley said to the CNN producer and she to him is a matter of
credibility about which we are unable to pass judgment. This is one of the few
cases in which the producers notes which totally support her version of what
was said to her off camera are flatly inconsistent with what an individual who
has been interviewed claimed she said. (AK Report, p. 40)
This claimed inability to pass judgment is starkly at odds with the judgment passed on
Van Buskirk and Moorer and inconsistent with the AK Reports earlier conclusion that:
[W]e do not believe it can reasonably be suggested that any of the information
on which the broadcast was based was fabricated or non-existent.
Contemporaneous notes made by the principal producer, April Oliver, are not
only consistent with typed notes that she prepared immediately after her

31

interviews, but in almost all cases with the later recollections of the individuals
interviewed. The accuracy of the notes is strongly supported, as well, by the fact
that they contain many passages which suggest less than complete or definitive
confirmation of the broadcast by its sources and much inconsistent information.
We rely upon many of those passages as a basis for our criticism of the
broadcast. (AK Report, pp. 4-5)
But not, apparently as a basis of criticism of McCarleys credibility.
Despite this purported inability to pass judgment on this issue, the AK Report sets forth
McCarleys post-broadcast complaints and statements and characterizes these
statements as a flat denial without contrasting that position to Olivers contemporaneous
notes or referencing what McCarley actually said according to those notes. Some of
McCarleys statements not referenced in the AK Report are set forth below.

What McCarley Said

Mr. Abrams said in CNNs retraction broadcast on July 5, 1998:
Hes not just a dissenter. I mean, this is the commander of the operation,
saying, in so many words, It wasnt nerve gas. And your audience wouldnt
know that from this broadcast.
This representation of what McCarley said, by Mr. Abrams, is extraordinarily inaccurate.
[Note: Mr. Abrams statement is also inconsistent with Mr. Abrams view, expressed in
the CNN Retraction broadcast, that, worst of all, Van Buskirk didnt know what he was
talking about with respect to the gas because he was on the ground.]
In April Olivers first cold call to Captain McCarley in September 1997, McCarley said:
Its very possible [it was nerve gas]. I really dont know what it was but the gas
did the job. It very well could have been nerve gas. We would have used
anything to get out. It wouldnt surprise me to find out that a lethal nerve gas
was used. It is very possible [that nerve gas was used]. I cant confirm or deny.
I would have no problems with it being used. People all trash Vietnam vets so.
But I think we would have used any weapon to get out alive.
In his on-camera interview in October 1997, McCarley referred to the gas as something
like pepper spray. About a week after that interview, he called April Oliver saying that he
didnt want the on-camera interview used, and that the gas was stronger than pepper
spray. This was an incapacitating gas, not a lethal gas.
None of this is referenced in the AK Report, which characterizes McCarley as flatly
den[ying] the thrust of the broadcast.
We do not suggest, and the broadcast did not suggest, that McCarley confirms that
nerve gas was used, but it is clear that his statements were self-contradictory,
inconclusive and destructive to his credibility on the subject. To include in the broadcast

32

his statement that I never, ever considered the use of lethal gas, not on any of my
operations, without any reference to the contradictory statements set forth above would
have been inaccurate and misleading. We therefore included the statement that
McCarley told CNN off camera that the use of nerve gas on Tailwind was very possible
and that on camera later he said, I never ever considered the use of lethal gas, not on
any of my operations. We believe this is a fair and balanced treatment of what he said
with respect to nerve gas.
With respect to defectors, the broadcast stated that, To this day, Captain McCarley
denies Tailwinds mission was to kill defectors, saying his orders were to draw enemy
troops away from CIA mercenaries embattled nearby, and showed McCarley saying,
[w]e werent looking for any village. We had no idea that one was there and we
stumbled upon it by accident. Again, this is a fair and balanced treatment of what
Captain McCarley told us about defectors.
Notwithstanding all of the doubts about McCarleys answers, and his self-expressed
willingness to deny that the U.S. military was operating in Laos, we reported his views
five times during the first eighteen minute report.

ART BISHOP
Art Bishop was one of the A1 pilots on Tailwind who dropped gas. Tailwind was the only
mission on which he dropped gas.
The AK Report states that Bishop strongly disputed the proposition that he might not
have known what weapons he was flying, basing that on his on-camera statement to us
that:
In my opinion it was just as I was briefed tear gas.
However, in an e-mail to April Oliver (not referenced by the AK Report), Bishop states
with respect to what was in the CBUs he dropped:
it could have been popcorn.
In addition, two Air Force commanders told us that the pilots would not have had a need
to know what they were carrying.
Bishop says in relation to the possibility that someone was flying nerve gas:
Who am I to say it isnt true.
He goes on to say:
as I recall the story we were given was that it was tear gas. If we had nerve gas
at NKP, it would have been really hard to take care of. I never heard about it.

33

Course there was tight security there. And you can never really go by what you
are told.
Nevertheless, we agree with the AK Report that Bishops statement should have been
included in the first broadcast. His statement that he believed the gas was just as he
was briefed tear gas - WAS included by us in the final cut of the story in Washington
D.C. which we fed to CNN in Atlanta. In the face of our vigorous protests, it was taken
out by NewsStand executive and senior producers in order to preserve a paragraph Rick
Kaplan insisted be inserted dealing with the domestic turmoil of 1970. That was a major
executive mistake and weakened the fairness and balance of the story.
Bishops statement was finally included in the second Tailwind broadcast on June 14,
1998.

GARY ROSE
Rose was the medic on Tailwind. The AK Report quotes Roses post-broadcast remark
that:
[I]t burned like CS [tear gas] in the eyes, my throat felt like CS, and my skin felt
like CS.once you are exposed to it, there is no question in your mind what it is.
The AK Report completely omits reference that, pre-broadcast, Rose initially adamantly
denied that any gas at all was used on extraction from Operation Tailwind and that the
only reason he donned his gas mask on the extraction was to protect his face from
crap kicked up by the helicopters blades. In that initial interview, Rose said that earlier
on in the day, prior to extraction, there had been a liquid gas that burned like hell and
may have been a liquid version of CS. In subsequent interviews, Rose changed his
position, saying that the gas was incapacitating, that a liquid gas was used on
extraction that was a lot stronger than CS tear gas, and that the gas was definitely not
CS tear gas. He said it was awful stuff. Rose also told our Associate Producer Amy
Kasarda that he was not saying the gas couldnt be GB, that maybe he was far enough
away not to get a heavy dose of it, that his physiology might be somewhat resistant to it
and that the tall elephant grass might have filtered it out. That was the state of Roses
information at the time of the broadcast.
In the week preceding the broadcast, Rose told associate producer Amy Kasarda that he
wouldnt have known what the gas was since he came to the landing zone last as he
was with all the wounded (also omitted from the AK Report).
After the broadcast, on June 7, 1998, Amy Kasarda called Rose to hear his reaction to
the story. Roses only complaint about the CNN broadcast was that it had shown a
picture of the wrong gas mask. The ones they wore on Tailwind had internal filters,
whereas we showed a picture of an earlier mask that had external filters. In the words of
a June 25, 1998 memorandum on Rose by Amy Kasarda, [h]e had no critique of any
other aspect of the show. In fact he volunteered a supporting statement:
You know, Rose said, I hadnt remembered until your broadcast, but it seems

34

to me I was told to take extra atropine [the sarin nerve gas antidote] with me on
this mission. (This statement is also not referenced in the AK Report.)
He told her that he was keeping his head down and not telling anyone he was even on
the mission.
Later still, well after the broadcast was aired, he finally came to the position quoted
uncritically by the AK Report.
Finally, it is worth noting the weak analysis of the AK Report with respect to Roses
position in Tailwind. Rose told us that he was last to the landing zone with the wounded,
and therefore, by his own admission, would be among the least likely to know what the
gas was. Nevertheless, the AK Report confidently states, without referencing this, that
given [Roses] role, one might fairly have expected Rose to be in the best position to
know the signs of sarin gas and to have been cognizant of its use.
Given Roses inconsistencies, we did not consider Rose to be interviewed on camera for
the broadcast. Again, had he stated that nerve gas was used, given his inconsistencies,
the AK Report would doubtless have subjected us to heavy criticism had we used him.
As it is, despite his self-contradictions, it subjects us to criticism for not using him.

ROBERT VAN BUSKIRK

Robert Van Buskirk was the First Lieutenant on the SOG hatchet force on Operation
Tailwind. The AK Report states that Van Buskirk was second in command of Operation
Tailwind (to Captain McCarley) but does not refer to the fact that due to McCarleys
early wounding, Van Buskirk was the de facto leader of Operation Tailwind. As the AK
Report states, there are indications that are in favor of using him as a source. He won a
Silver Star for his participation in Tailwind, personally briefed General Abrams on that
mission, is articulate and by virtue of his involvement a knowledgeable source for
information about Tailwind. (AK Report, p. 46). Even Captain McCarley praises Van
Buskirks valor on this mission.
Van Buskirks Credibility
The AK Report goes on to state, however, that there are a number of problems with Van
Buskirk as a source, both pre- and post-broadcast. When taken together.it was
unacceptable to ignore his medical history, the inconsistency between his book and what
he said on air, and the ambiguity in his recollections of the gas. Whatever can be said
for using him before June 7, the added weight of evidence uncovered since the
broadcast seriously diminishes any further reasonable reliance on him. (AK Report,
p46, emphasis added).
For the record, there is no ambiguity at all with respect to Van Buskirks recollection of
the gas. This is a totally unfounded statement by the AK Report which we deal with
under (a) and (b) below.

35

Other than this alleged ambiguity, the issue here, therefore, seems to be, not the
ambiguity or insufficiency - there was none - of Van Buskirks information, but his
credibility.
The AK Report raises five issues of concern (AK Report, pp. 44-45):

(a)

His book does not mention the use of poison gas or his killing of
Americans or Russians in Laos.

The book referred to was written by Van Buskirk in 1983, and chronicles Van Buskirks
voyage of personal discovery towards Christianity. It devotes only one 25-page chapter
out of its 216 pages to describe the events of Operation Tailwind, and was distributed to
prisons across the United States as part of Van Buskirks prison ministry. Van Buskirk
has stated that, I didnt write this book to embarrass my country; I love my country. I
just wrote it to tell how much God had to deal with in saving my life. This suggests that
an accurate and complete description of Operation Tailwind was not essential (or,
arguably, even desirable) in the book, which is about Van Buskirks personal redemption.
In our initial cold call to Van Buskirk in October 1997, before anyone knew where the
story might lead, Van Buskirk said with regard to his book, It was all about Tailwind, that
is why it was so risky, cause it was still top secret. With regard to the gas dropped on
Tailwind, he referred, unprompted, to a conversation he had had regarding the use of
lethal nerve gas on Tailwind and said, I didnt really talk about the gas [in my book]
because it was too top secret.
The authors of the AK Report state that Van Buskirks book mentions a gas, arguably in
terms inconsistent with sarin. The relevant passage in the book says, I immediately
became sick. The gas was a nauseous kind, and I soon found myself wandering among
dozens of other vomiting soldiers. They were friend and foe. When one is bent over
sick, its hard to distinguish one from the other. This description is inconclusive as to
whether the gas might be sarin or tear gas, but is presented by the authors of the AK
Report as being arguablyinconsistent with sarin. It is more arguably inconsistent
with tear gas disbursed in an open rice paddy. The description in the book is obviously
too incomplete to support any conclusion. Nevertheless, the AK Report uses it to
support its conclusion.
All of Van Buskirks full descriptions of the symptoms of the gas in his interviews with us
are more supportive of sarin than tear gas and have been clear and consistent
throughout. My unit puked their brains out. We all got amoebic dysentery. Everyones
nose ran and all this mucous started coming out of everybodys nostrils. Lots of enemy
started having seizures.
The chapter dealing with Tailwind does not mention the killing of Americans on the
mission. Van Buskirk told us that he did not mention this because he wanted to limit the
gore contained in the book, which he was to use in his prison ministry.
(b)
Van Buskirk initially referred to the gas as CBU 19 (tear gas) and his later
assertion that this was a lethal gas may well have been encouraged by some of
the questioning of him. The soundbite of Van Buskirk saying sleeping gaswas
slang for nerve gas overstates the certainty of his knowledge.

36

The AK Report states that in early interviews, Van Buskirk repeatedly refers to the gas
as CBU-19 (tear gas), and that, [w]hile in later interviews he appears to become more
certain of the lethal nature of the gas used his certainty may well have been colored by
some of the questioning of him.
Encouraged by Questioning
The allegation that Van Buskirk was encouraged by questioning is easily refuted on a
cursory examination of the initial cold call interview of Van Buskirk. Our first cold call to
Van Buskirk demonstrates that a charge that Van Buskirk was encouraged by
questioning is absolutely baseless. The following is a full list of the questions asked on
that call:
Q.

You were in SOG?

Q.

Tell me about your book.

Q.

How come you wrote a book on Tailwind?

Q.

How was the gas delivered? Did you write about the gas in your book?

Q.

Do you remember the code name?

Q.

Was the code name tar heelsor pod pai?

Q.

You sure it was lethal war gas not incapacitating gas? [This question was
asked after Van Buskirk stated, The rest of the enemy all died from the gas.]

Q.

Do you know where the gas came from?

Q.

Did they give you an antidote?

Q.

What was McCarleys role?

Q.

Have you ever been approached by a journalist?

Q.

How do I know you are the real Black Sapper?

Q.

Any remorse?

Q.

Reaction to Plaster?

Q.

Could you divert a B-52?

Q.

Any surprise at what we reported re: the B-52s?

Q.

Anybody else?

Q.

Ever feel bad about civilians?

37

To state the obvious, none of these questions give encouragement to talk about a
lethal gas. Van Buskirk offers the word gas before it is ever mentioned by the
questioner.
Nevertheless, in answer to these questions on the initial cold call, Van Buskirk provided
a lot of relevant information about a lethal gas (some of which is set forth below), much
of it was later corroborated by other sources. It is also clear that he did not provide this
information because of encouraging questions asked of him. This is another unfounded
assertion by the AK Report.
Reference to CBU-19 (tear gas)
The AK Reports assertion that Van Buskirks initially referred to the gas as tear gas,
when his statements in his initial interview are read, is an extraordinary
misrepresentation of what he said.
Statements made by Van Buskirk in the initial cold call in answer to the questions listed
above include the following:
It was all about Tailwind, that is why it was so risky, cause it was still top secret.
You know they teach Tailwind now down at Fort Bragg as the way to do a SLAM
operation behind enemy lines. In the end we just tore the enemy apart. I just
dont know how much they teach the gas. this CIA guy chased me down a few
years ago and told me..I know that the U.S. has only used lethal nerve gas
twice in its history, and one of the times was on the date, I think it was September
13, 1970, mentioned in your book, but I didnt know on what operation until I read
your book. I didnt really talk about the gas [in my book] because it was too top
secret. It was delivered in CBU-19s. Lots of guys had lost their gas masks so it
was real risky. Mine had been shot full of holes. Our casualties were 100%. And
boy was that briefing interesting with Abrams. There was a CIA agent in that
briefing. But it came off, no glitches. And there was this Air Force Colonel in
there screaming, This is insane, were not flying this stuff. That stuff they put
in the CBU-19s it made us sick. The enemy was off on the hilltop, and started to
come down on us. We had no choice. I had no choice. We were dead meat so I
called out for the baddest of the bad. The rotors of the choppers kept it off us,
and pushed it away from us. The rest of the enemy all died from the gas.
Oh, yeah, it was lethal war gas. Course they dont tell us too much It came
out of NKP. An A1E was carrying it. It wasnt no incapacitating gas in that
CBU-19.
He also describes the symptoms of those exposed to the gas in some detail, including a
description of the enemy laying down to die.
My unit puked their brains out. We all got amoebic dysentery. Everyones nose
ran and all this mucous started coming out of everyones nostrils. Lots of enemy
started having seizures.
These are not tear gas symptoms.
Contrary to the AK Reports assertion that Van Buskirk is talking about CBU-19 (tear

38

gas) in his initial interviews, it is absolutely clear that he is talking about a lethal gas. He
is not talking about tear gas. This kind of misrepresentation by the AK Report calls into
question its bona fides.
At a meeting later in early October 1997 after the initial cold call but before his on
camera interview, Van Buskirk took April Oliver aside and told her that the call sign
wasnt 19, it was more like CBU 15 or 16. The confusion may have arisen because of
the militarys subordinate designation of sarin nerve gas is BLU-19.
The Soundbite
The soundbite used in the broadcast regarding Van Buskirks knowledge of the gas was
Van Buskirks statement that sleeping gas.was a slang for nerve gas. This
immediately followed correspondent Peter Arnetts statement that [t]he arsenal included
a special weapon known as sleeping gas. CBU-15 was indeed a part of the US
arsenal, evidenced by the weapons manuals obtained by us. Van Buskirks statement
simply ties in the slang sleeping gas to a nerve agent. We do not know what
knowledge this misrepresents.
(c)
Van Buskirk disclosed that he had been treated for a nervous disorder for
ten years and was taking prescription drugs.
As it does with Admiral Moorer, the AK Report attacks Van Buskirks credibility with
insinuation. Many soldiers were treated for nervous disorders after Vietnam. This does
not mean they are unreliable sources. In any event, Van Buskirk was not suffering from
a nervous disorder or taking such medication during 1970 when Operation Tailwind
occurred or during 1997-98 when he was interviewed by CNN.
(d)
There are recent reports that Van Buskirk attributes to repressed
memory his previous failure to recall the encounter with defectors. Also, in early
interviews [the first cold call and the first on-camera interview in October 1997] he
describes the killing of Caucasians as involving Russians.
The AK Report states as uncontroverted fact that Lieutenant Van Buskirk has stated in
spectacularly self-destructive fashion that he had repressed memory syndrome which
he only overcame while speaking with Oliver. This assertion is based on a so-called
failure to recall the encounter with two Americans in early interviews with Oliver. The
allegation stems from a third party report by Newsweek. We do not know what steps
were taken by the authors of the AK Report to confirm the accuracy of that report.
Elementary inquiries would have raised serious questions about its accuracy.
Van Buskirk does in fact raise the encounter with a Caucasian in the fox hole in the first
cold call with Oliver in October 1997 in the following terms:
And I saw a white guy running through it. And he jumped in a foxhole. When I
told him to come out he said in perfect English fuck you. And I called for air. It
was a Russian adviser.
This cold call predates the on-camera interview cited by Newsweek as the interview in

39

which Van Buskirk overcame his purported repressed memory.

Van Buskirk obviously remembers the incident clearly and the use of perfect English by
the Caucasian. Would he be likely to mention his later stated belief that this was an
American in an initial cold call? Unlikely, given that, as Van Buskirk told us in a
telephone interview in April 8, 1998, his colonel had told him to leave out all mention of
killing an American in the camp from my briefing notes. The colonel told him, he said, to
forget this ever happened. It will not be written down..He was probably a Russian
who spoke perfect English. Unlike the authors of the AK Report, we do not find this to
be anywhere close to being repressed memory syndrome.
Van Buskirk has been clear and consistent throughout from the first moment forward
with regard to this memory.
Van Buskirk denies the allegation that he suffers from repressed memory syndrome,
calling it hogwash. It simply does not fit with the facts. In all of our interviews with Van
Buskirk he never once mentioned repressed memory.
We have been told by Evan Thomas, the Newsweek reporter, that Van Buskirk answered
affirmatively a question put to him by Thomas, in which Thomas (not Van Buskirk)
introduced the term repressed memory. By the AK Reports own standards (which it
appears to apply selectively), and any reasonable standard, this falls far short of being a
statement by Van Buskirk that he suffers from repressed memory syndrome.
(e)
Every interview he has given since the broadcast has made him seem still
less reliable.
The AK Report states that [s]ince the broadcast (and after the sustained criticism of him
by SOG veterans) [Van Buskirk] has asserted he was not a source for sarin. The AK
Report does not say to whom he made this alleged assertion. It seems that the AK
Report is again relying on third party reporting, in this instance a Fox newscast on June
25, 1998. In that newscast the following exchange takes place between Van Buskirk
and a Fox reporter:
Q.

And did you ever tell anyone that you used the nerve agent sarin on Operation
Tailwind?

A.

No, sir. I never used the word sarin. The only thing that I did say was prior to
their investigation Id received a phone call from a former CIA officer who said
that we had used a lethal war gas thats the only term I used besides CBU-19.

Q.

A lethal war gas which is not necessarily a nerve agent.

A.

Thats correct.

As Van Buskirk makes clear in this interview, his point is that, while he referred to a
lethal gas and its properties, he never used the word sarin.

40

What Van Buskirk Said

We interviewed Van Buskirk on numerous occasions, including three times in October
1997, twice in April 1998 and once in May 1998. The following are extracts from well
over one hundred pages of interview transcripts. In those interviews, Van Buskirk told us
that a lethal gas was used, that immediately prior to Operation Tailwind an Air Force
Colonel advised him the gas could kill you, that the effects of the gas included
convulsions, vomiting and death, and that years after the operation a former CIA
employee advised him that September 14, 1970 was the first time that the U.S. had used
lethal nerve gas.
The following are extracts from Van Buskirks statements to April Oliver and Peter Arnett:
From the initial cold call telephone interview with April Oliver in October 1997 (please
note, again, there is no sign of repressed memory in this initial cold call):
Van Buskirk:
The enemy was off on the hilltop, and started to come down on
us. We had no choice. I had no choice. We were dead meat so I called out for
the baddest of the bad. The rotors of the choppers kept it off of us, and pushed it
away from us.What the enemy wasnt expecting was gas. They didnt have
masks. They didnt know what to do. We knew it was coming so we were
prepared. It came in close, but we were on the edge of it, it hit right in the middle
of the enemy. It was the only way I could create an LZ out of this rice paddy that
was about to swarm with enemy. The only other option would have been to call
for airstrikes on ourselves.
Immediately everyone was puking and the enemy laid down to die. There were
150 men or so lying down on the distance of about three football fields. And so
we made this LZ out of a rice paddy. I called for it. I got it. I made the
determination. We had had it, we were all injured and we were out of ammo.
There was just no way we were going to get out. I called in the gas. We had to
get out because of the weather.
This was something that Singlaub, Shungle and Sadler thought up as an act of
love for us. They wanted us to know that everything that the U.S. had in the
arsenal would be available to us. And frankly, if I hadnt of called for it, I knew an
Arc Light [B-52 bomber strike] was coming to take us all out.
And later in the same initial cold call:

Q.
A.

Are you sure it was lethal war gas not incapacitating gas?
Oh yeah, it was lethal war gas. Course they dont tell us too much The CIA guy
who wrote that book will know what the chemicals were. Singlaub will know. You
should go to Singlaub at the end of this and see if he will fess up.

Q.

Do you know where the gas came from?

A.

It came out of NKP. An A1E was carrying it.

41

Q.

Did they give you an antidote?

A.

I dont remember that. My unit puked their brains out. We all got amoebic
dysentery. Everyones nose ran and all this mucous started coming out of
everyones nostrils. Lots of enemy started having seizures.

Later still from this initial cold call comes the following exchange, which is relevant to the
proposition put forward by Newsweek that Van Buskirk suffered from repressed memory
which he only overcame while speaking to Oliver.
Q.

Ever feel bad about civilians?

A.

Im a fighter. My orders were if it was alive, kill it. If it defecated, kill it. If it
breathed oxygen, kill it. But my friend [name intentionally omitted] had a nervous
breakdown over it. There was this one enemy encampment that we found. And I
saw a white guy running through it. And he jumped in a foxhole. When I told him
to come out he said in perfect English fuck you. And I called for air. It was a
Russian adviser. I got his ring and all his stuff.There was no such thing as
probable enemy. Anything that was alive was to be killed. And you know we
were fighting everybody out there: Chinese, Russian, NVA and Pathet Lao. We
had it all.

From an on-camera interview with Peter Arnett on May 5, 1998:

Q.

So what was this stuff? Tell us about it.

A.

Well, we had been briefed and told that it was sleeping gas, and this stuff would
incapacitate you. You know, the name of the game for Special Forces was
weapons systems. And in looking back, some people might call it CBU-19, which
was a mild tear gas. Well, thats not going to do much good in the middle of a
firefight when people are pumped on adrenaline and taking rounds in it, and not
even feeling it. The enemy was known to fill themselves full of morphine and
heroin before the fight, so you need something to knock them out. BLU-19, that
was supposedly a pretty potent and deadly gas. And so all we knew is whatever
was the worst of the worst, the bad of the bad, we had it. And theyd give it to us,
theyd give us whatever we had to have to stay alive.

Van Buskirk also told us that an Air Force colonel took him aside after the pre-mission
briefing:
[H]e got me aside, when he realized who I was the only son of an Air Force
colonel who he apparently knew, and you know, it was kind of like he was kind
of like the dad saying, Now, son, dont drink and drive, because if you do youre
going to get hurt, You know, as a youngster you kind of ignore it. Oh, I can do it
and get away with it. And he said, Son, make sure you take your gas mask,
because if you had to use this stuff, it can really hurt you. So, I took it as a
serious warning, and I made sure that Super Drunk, my platoon sergeant, that
we had a gas mask for every single Montagnard. And I know, for example, in
some platoons not everybody had one, but I made sure all 55 of my men had a
mask, and thats one of the things I inspected.

42

Q.

So tell us again the colonel, when he pulled aside, tell us again this sequence,
this Air Force guy, after the briefing, and then, you know, there was some what
did he say to you?

A.

Well, there was this Air Force colonel who, I believe was the same one that was
balding and his head would get redder every time they would show him a chart of
the known, fixed anti-aircraft positions, and he was sliding further and further
down on his chair. And he eventually said, Im not going to fly were not flying
this. And we came to understand that possibly the first delay was because he
didnt want to put the pilots and Air Force personnel in that much known harms
way.
But at one point in time he got me aside, because he realized that Im the only
son of an Air Force colonel, who apparently he knew my dad was in Saigon at
the time. And he said, Now be sure you take your gas mask with you. And he
said, This stuff can really hurt you; as a matter of fact, it can kill you.

Van Buskirk stated that a Military Intelligence Officer in Saigon told me that we had
turncoats. And we were to kill our own, but that we had no need to know that. [W]e
were told if it was alive, kill it, if it moved, kill it. Do not bring back prisoners for any
reason.
We will set forth Van Buskirks statements regarding the two possible defectors in some
detail, since it is referred to in citing the repressed memory syndrome proposition.
When asked in the on-camera interview on May 5, 1998 what convinced him that the two
Caucasians in the spider hole were Americans, Van Buskirk said:
Peter, I was as close almost as you and I are and that young man looked right at
me. I mean he looked right at me, but he looked through me, looked past me.
Its what I later came to know as the 1,000 yard stare. I had never seen the
1,000 yard stare. I later learned what it is. But he looked at me, through me. It
was the saddest look. Its the only face that Ive kept from Tailwind. In other
words, all the gore and all the blood and I stuck my head in one hootch and thats
all I saw, and all the stuff that would give nightmares to a soldier is gone from my
spirit. I dont have any nightmares or remembrances other than that young
mans face, the second one. And I remember it this day as if it was yesterday.
He had piercing blue eyes, was a Caucasian. He had long, blond hair. And he
looked the saddest look Ive ever seen in my life. And his English was perfect.
Asked to describe what preceded that moment, Van Buskirk goes on:
I see a longshadow, a Caucasian, a man over five foot tall which puts him in a
whole new league, waist up, going in a hole. You know, young, early twenties.
US type fatigues. No markers, no patches. I mean, just in an instant, this is a
GI, government issue. Whats he doing here? Hairs too long. He needs a
haircut. What is this, you know.
And Im looking. Now all this is happening in an instant. This is all thats stayed
with me, from all these years. The rest of its gone. And then I see out of the
corner, from the oblique, here comes another one running, fatigues, US type
issue, pockets on the pants. Early 20s. Blond hair. And it looks like hes running
43

off a beach in California. Needs a haircut. This is a GI. Boots on. Not a
prisoner. No shackles, no chains, nothing. And hes running fast, hes healthy.
Hes moving.
And me, Im going to catch him. Hes a prize, you know. And Im thinking for
myself, my orders are to kill it if it moves, but this is one of my own. And I
attempt to run him down. Hes just a little quicker than I am. I knew in my spirit
that these were Americans. But I was able to be convinced after the Russian
insignia was given to me later and my colonel got a hold of me and said, Look,
theyre Russians. They speak English better than we do. And he told me about
World War II and the Germans and how they wear our uniforms. And I bought
the lie.
Van Buskirk goes on:
our motto in Special Forces was two fold. One, we kill for peace. And two, kill
them all and let God sort them out. So this is the mindset that Im operating
under. But Id also been a high school English teacher just two some years you
know, two years and some months before, so theres some humanity in there,
and I guess the humanity is trying to win over the soldier.
So when I knelt down, I knelt down because I missed him, and identified myself,
because here I am with no dog tags, no markings, no unit insignia, no rank. You
know Im no ID card, no dog tags. He doesnt know who I am. And so I
identified myself. I said, Im Lieutenant Van Buskirk, 5th Special Forces. Ill take
you home.
And what he said, it crushed me. You know, he said the word, and he said, you
know, FU. Perfect English. No accent. And Im a linguist. I understand
languages. There was no accent in that mans voice. This was an American in
my opinion. And I so stated on my after action report. But my commander says,
Listen, this was a Russian.
Q.

So youre kneeling there and he defies you basically?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What do you do then?

A.

I say, No, FU. And the soldier came back. And I said, Im going to count to
three and Im going to mark this with a Willy Pete. He knew what a Willy Pete
[sic] anybody in the military knew what a white phosphorous grenade is. And
my radiomans right hes caught up with me by now, so you can hear my PRC25, you can hear the FAC above, you can hear all that. I mean hes right below
my feet in the hole.
And so I grab the handset and I called the FAC and I said, Ill mark the center of
the camp with a Willy Pete. I counted to three, out loud. Now, no sign from him.
Im sure that he was heading in the tunnel, trying to get away. And I dropped the
Willy Pete, ran backwards and it went off and shot up through this triple
canopy. . . .

44

Q.

Tell us what you thought this man was, and why you killed him.

A.

Well, I thought he was a defector, a turncoat for several reasons. One, he had
his boots. Now, what wed been trained is the first thing the enemy did when
they captured us is took our boots, because were a soft footed people. We
couldnt walk anywhere. We couldnt go anywhere barefooted. So we couldnt
run away if we didnt have our boots, not in the jungle. So by the fact that he had
his boots, it told me that he wasnt a prisoner. Second, he ran fast. He was
healthy. Theres nothing wrong with him. Third, his hair. It was too long to be a
current GI, but it wasnt that long. I mean, everything about him just smelled and
looked and I sensed American. His fatigues werent NVA. And they were the old
rip-stop, OD green fatigues. I could spot the pants with the side pockets. No unit
markings, but they were there. I mean there was no doubt in my mind that he
was a turncoat, and I was going to give him a chance to surrender. And
obviously he didnt want to. Obviously he knew what was waiting for him at the
other end. There would be a court martial and justice and prison. So he told me
exactly what he thought of me, what I could do. And I said, No, its FU."
My orders were fulfilled. My orders were if its alive, kill it, and I did exactly what
I was ordered to do. And I had no shame or fear in putting in an after action
report, because I told exactly what I saw, what we counted and what happened.
And that was sterilized.

Van Buskirks statement regarding his chase of the blond Caucasian is corroborated by
Mike Hagen, who said in an off-camera interview in June 1998:
I saw Van Buskirk running after the blond guy.
In addition, Jimmy Lucas said in an on-camera interview:
Ive heard of that [a blond person being sighted], but I never saw itI heard that
somebody saw him, but I cant say, I cant remember who
CNNs NewsStand broadcast its retraction report on July 5, 1998. That retraction
broadcast itself contains many misrepresentations and inconsistencies, including some
with respect to Van Buskirk. We mention one of them in this Rebuttal only because it
was made by Floyd Abrams, one of the authors of the AK Report.
On the retraction broadcast, Mr. Abrams states with respect to Van Buskirk:
And worst of all, worst of everything, he didnt know what he was talking about.
Hes not a guy who would know if it was nerve gas or sleeping gas or tear gas.
He was on the ground.
This is an incredible statement by Mr. Abrams. If he believes it, then he must reach the
same conclusion regarding every commando on the ground, including McCarley and
Rose.
Although Mr. Abrams on television claims it to be worst of all, Abrams and Kohler had
nothing to say about this in the AK Report. To the contrary, the AK Report states that
45

indications are in favor of using him as a source. He won a Silver Star for his
participation in Tailwind, personally briefed General Abrams on that mission, is articulate
and by virtue of his involvement a knowledgeable source for information about Tailwind,
before the AK Report makes the leap to criticize his general credibility.
Mr. Abrams statement on the CNN retraction broadcast is also self-contradictory in other
ways. In the CNN retraction broadcast, Abrams goes on to say about McCarley, who
was wounded early and did not engage in much of the fighting:
this is the commander of the operation saying, in so many words, It wasnt
nerve gas, [another over-simplified misrepresentation by Mr. Abrams] and your
audience wouldnt know that from this broadcast.
Which is it, Mr. Abrams? Is the information given by the fighting men on the ground
relevant or not?
Regardless of Mr. Abrams dismissal of Van Buskirk because he was on the ground,
the soldiers on the ground are the eyewitnesses, and therefore are obviously best
placed to describe their experiences. Furthermore, Van Buskirk, on the ground was the
de facto leader of the operation and was the commando who called for the gas, the
baddest of the bad. Finally, Van Buskirk had been told about a lethal gas and, like
Captain McCarley, had been briefed that any weapon in the U.S. arsenal would be
available to him except nuclear weapons.

JAY GRAVES
Jay Graves was on the SOG reconnaissance team for Tailwind. His credibility is not
attacked by the AK Report.
The Tailwind broadcast contained the following passage:
Arnett:

Jay Graves was a SOG reconnaissance team leader, dropped into Laos
several days before the Tailwind commando team. His mission:

Graves:

Take photos if we could, establish ID on people without going in the

camp.

Arnett:

From this position, his recon team (emphasis added) spotted several
Americans, roundeyes either POWs or defectors.

Graves:

We saw some round-eyed people.

prisoners or whatever.

We dont know whether theyre

The AK Report states that the omission of Graves statements that it was someone else
on his team who saw these people and that there was no way to tell whether they were
Americans made it appear that Graves recollections were more certain than they

46

actually were. The AK Report does not refer to Arnetts introduction, which makes it
clear that it was Graves recon team, rather than Graves himself, that saw the
Caucasians. We do not believe, as the AK Report proposes, that the broadcast
suggests that Graves himself saw Caucasians. In addition, Graves recollection is clear
and certain that two American members of his recon team saw these people and
photographed them. He states that members of his team took pictures and that they
estimated there were 14 to 20 round-eyes in the camp. Graves told us that the recon
team was sent to find Americans, that his team members said they saw Americans and
that Graves radioed in Affirmative. His statements are corroborated by the statements
of Cathey (who saw 10-15 of what he believed were American defectors, because there
was no sign of restraint), Van Buskirk (who chased two Caucasians into a hole) and
Hagen (who saw Van Buskirk chasing a blond Caucasian). As discussed below, the AK
Report does not take issue with any of Catheys statements.
Graves statement that there was no way to tell whether the roundeyes sighted were
Americans is likewise not inconsistent with what was broadcast, which included his
statement that, we dont know whether theyre prisoners or whatever.
With respect to defectors, Graves stated that Hell, yes, American defectors were
always a primary target of SOG.
A.

Those sons of bitches gave up to the enemy. Nine out of ten of them are not
coming back, cause they will resist you.

And later:
Q.

So its better to kill them than to waste American lives court-marshalling them?

A.

If they resist you. Why should we kill ourselves getting that worthless piece of
shit. We have no need for those assholes. Hell they had a $50,000 bounty on
each of us. Turnabout is fair play.

Q.

But you were briefed at times to kill defectors?

A.

Hell yes. They were the dirtiest bastards of all.

Graves learned of the use of the sleeping or knockout gas immediately after
Operation Tailwind when he returned to the base and [e]verybody was talking about the
knockout gas.
This is the relevant passage:
Q.

So GB is killer gas that puts you to sleep?

A.

Thats what we came to believe after sitting there and listening. We would come
back and talk afterwards. They definitely used gas, and they wanted to keep it
real secret. Course they lied to us about everything. It burns my ass.
Everybody was talking about the knockout gas after the mission. Thats why I

47

requested it at the House of Ten.

And later:
Q.

In the end you understood that the hatchet force got pulled out with GB?

A.

Yup, GB. Course they called it sleeping gas. And then they tried to call it nothing
but tear gas, probably cause everyone was talking about all the casualties and
all, and they wanted to cover up.

And later:
Q.

But how did you know what sleep gas was?

A.

You are never given anything till after the fact. They did not tell us squat. Not
unless you had a need to know.

The following exchange from the Graves interview was used on the broadcast:
GB, we started calling it knockout gas, and then it was GB, and then they
changed it to something else....which I can understand why they was doing it
now.
Q.

Why were they doing it?

A.

Because they were using nerve gas in that shit and not telling anybody about it.

This was supported by descriptions given to Graves of the symptoms experienced by

those subject to the gas.
Q.

And you say people were knocked out?

A.

Yeah, just out, and they said that some of them, they thought was coming back.
Some of the medics said that they went over and started treating them, and they
said it just got worse.

Q.

(off mike)

A.

Yeah, they looked like they was going to recover from it, and then they just well,
it was just the guys hadnt ever seen nerve gas, what it does to the body. Its a
pretty horrible thing.

The AK Report states that Graves knowledge that the call sign for the gas used in
Tailwind was GB was likely based on hearsay. The AK Report fails to note that Graves
was a chemical containment officer after the Vietnam War and gained knowledge of the
codename for the sleeping gas (i.e., GB) from a chemical officer.
In response to a question as to whether he ever used sleeping gas, Graves states as
follows:

48

Never used it myself, but we were taught its tactics. I think it was taught at the
inner compound. It was one of those things like the Phoenix Program. Real
hush hush. People didnt talk about it much.
The following quote is from Graves on-camera interview, after he says he had heard
only in the last month that knockout gas had sarin in it:
Thats all we was told, knockout gas and GB. And theyre one and the same,
and it kind of got to going, well, I didnt believe some of these guys that was
getting trained in that. And they said they were using it, and I didnt know where
it was coming from. And then the way that you had to use it, you had to put it on
request, like ordering it up from a doctors pharmacy office. I mean, the control of
it, it was more than I wanted to handle.
And later from the same interview:
Q.

Well, what did you learn later when you were a chemical officer sleeping gas
really was? What did you learn later about what sleeping gas really was?

A.

Well, it kind of came to our attention it got evaded and evaded and evaded, and
people saying this, and that it was just a rumor, and then when you tried to check
out, it was nerve gas.

JIM CATHEY
Pastor Jim Cathey was a member of the rat pack, an Air Force NCO directing resupply
for SOG during Tailwind. The AK Report makes little reference to the information given
by Cathey. Catheys credibility is not attacked by the AK Report. The following are
some exchanges:
(from March 23, 1998 off-camera interview)
Q.

What was your understanding of the mission, you mention a village they were
supposed to get rid of.

A.

Partly to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. There was also supposed to be a
stockpile of ammunition that could have been used against U.S. forces. The
main thing was to destroy it. But there was this village, that as far as we knew,
people had heard it had VC, not regulars but real Viet Cong that came and went
as they pleased. Laos was supposedly neutral. But they were there, and so
were the Russians. We called them longshadows. We were supposed to take
out any roundeye Caucasian, what we called longshadows, if they were walking
loose.

Q.

Could that include American defectors?

A.

Yes, if they were walking loose. Anyone with round eyes. They were sure the

49

Russians were there.

(from April 28, 1998 on-camera interview)
Q.

So you do believe there were American defectors out there?

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Could you say that in a statement?

A.

Yes, I think I can. I believe there were American defectors in that group of people
in that village, because there was no no sign of any kind of restraint. They
walked around as though they were part of the bunch. And thats the reason I
dont have any regrets whatsoever about what happened in that village.

Q.

Theyre enemy.

A.

Theyre enemy. Exactly.

CRAIG SCHMIDT
Craig Schmidt was a member of the SOG Tailwind hatchet force and was awarded the
Silver Star for his part in Tailwind. He has no direct knowledge whether the gas used
was nerve gas, but acknowledges that sleeping gas is GB, and describes the symptoms
experienced from the periphery of the gas drop, stating that this was not CS (tear gas).
He also confirms the general SOG objective to kill defectors. His credibility is not
attacked by the AK Report.
From an April 1998 off-camera interview:
Q.

Ever hear of sleeping gas?

A.

Yup.

Q.

Same thing as GB?

A.

Uh, hum.

Q.

But sleeping gas was used on TailwindDoes it surprise you to learn it was
nerve gas?

A.

No, not at all. It probably was nerve gas. What would be surprising is if they
ever admitted it.

50

And later in that same interview:

Q.

So the gas doesnt surprise you, that it was nerve gas?

A.

No, not at all. There was a huge emphasis on yards [Montagnards] and the gas
preparation before we went out. To make sure that everyone had a gas mask or
to share them. All Americans had theirs and held on to them.

Q.

This was not CS?

A.

Oh no. CS and CN [are] still easy to work in. The enemy was far too used to it.
It would have been a big mistake to use CS. No, the gas was no surprise.

And later:

Q.

How did the gas feel?

A.

Sticky, wet.

Q.

No distinct color?

A.

No. There was a goodly amount of it. It didnt come from the jets. I am sure it
came in from the A1s who came in close.

Q.

It worked immediately?

A.

Oh yeah. Profusion from eyes, nose, everything got sticky. We turned our
sleeves down to cover ourselves up as much as possible. We were not in the
direct path of the gas. They did a nice job dropping it. We were on the
periphery

And later:

Q.

McCarley says the gas used was just like pepper spray.

A.

I guarantee you it was not pepper spray. Van Buskirk is your best source.

Q.

But you knew it at the time as sleeping gas?

A.

Yes. We knew it as sleeping gas. We knew its impact was far greater than CS.
CS you can work through. But not this.

Q.

This wasnt a white powder?

A.

No. This had a wet feel. It was clear and wet, totally different.

From the May 1998 off-camera interview:

51

Q.

Is it fair to say that in SOG you always wanted to kill defectors?

A.

Oh yeah, you wanted to take them out. A defector is a defector.

Q.

Were Salt and Pepper [defector code names] fair game?

A.

Oh yeah, they were fair game, unofficially of course.

JIMMY LUCAS
Jimmy Lucas was a member of the SOG Tailwind hatchet force. His statements are
consistent with the use of gas stronger than tear gas and confirm the SOG objective on
Tailwind was to kill defectors (word got around thats what we were going in for). His
credibility is not attacked by the AK Report.

MIKE HAGEN
Mike Hagen was a SOG sergeant on Tailwind. His statement corroborates the use of
nerve gas on Tailwind and confirms the general SOG objective to kill defectors. His
credibility is not attacked by the AK Report.
The following are extracts of his statements:
Q.

If you had to estimate how many roundeyes in hootches, what would you say?

A.

I would say there was like six of them [it is not clear whether Hagen saw them
himself he says elsewhere that he didnt attempt to ID roundeyes and that we
found them after we went through the village]

With respect to defectors, he says:

We would sacrifice anything to get that sucker [defector]. Cause they were so
hated. I mean we would cut off their heads, even if the body was too damaged to
get it out. Cause we hated them so much. If you cut off hands, they could still
be alive. But you cant live without a head can you?
And later:
Q.

But killing defectors was always a primary target?

A.

Oh yeah, if you ever saw an American, you went after him at all costs.

52

With respect to the gas, Hagen made these statements:

The Montagnards were getting sick, they were vomiting and going into
convulsions. I started to get nauseated I got very sick. I fell to the ground,
started going into convulsions. It wasnt a type of gas, say, a smoke barrage, to
hide what you are doing it was there to immobilize the people on the ground.
_______________________
The Yards are starting to panic, a lot of them for some reason. I dont know if it
was panic or if their gas masks were hurt, or what the problem was, but they
were getting sick, they were vomiting, going into convulsions. I could see a lot of
the enemy people on the ground going into convulsions, uh which we walked
over em, uh I started getting nauseated.
_______________________
it was majorly effective. Yeah, they were, they [the enemy] were on the
ground. They were alive I assume, at that particular time, but they were gone. I
mean they had thrown up. They were in convulsions on the ground. No sign, I
mean I didnt start to take medical things on them, and check if their eyes dilated
or not, but I dont think too many of them got up and walked away. I dont think it
was what the Government wants to call it, an incapacitating agent, to where they
can come through and sort out the good from the bad.

It was tasteless, odorless, you could barely see it.

_________________
After the second helicopter, I started feeling it, I was getting dizzy, I was getting
nauseated, I was throwing up, I would lift the gas mask and throw up. Uh, the
second helicopter came in, I started helping guys into it and then I fell to the
ground. And I dont remember a whole lot after that.
we were taught at Fort Bragg, that was part of the training. They put you
through CS thing, so you know what it is. They teach you mustard gas. They
teach you all forms of gas, not specifically for us using them, but if you encounter
them.
__________________

Q.

So you knew it wasnt just CS.

A.

Oh, yeah. It was definitely obvious it wasnt CS gas.

__________________

Q.

So what type of gas are you talking about here?

A.

Nerve gas. The Government dont want it called that. They want to call it an
incapacitating agent, or some other form. But it was nerve gas. I got exposed to
it, cause when I was shot, it went through my mask.

53

SOG RECON TEAM COMMANDO 1

This commando was a Recon team member on Tailwind and was pulled out of Operation
Tailwind before the hatchet team arrived. His credibility is not attacked by the AK Report.
The following are extracts from his statements:
Q.

Did you hear that there were POWs in the area?

A.

We had heard that there were Americans thereI had heard and seen pictures
there were Caucasians there.

Q.

Did you think they were defectors or POWs?

A.

We were informed that there were POWswe had seen pictures.

Q.

I have heard some mention of Russians or a Russian who was there, turning
POWs over to the other side.

A.

As far as Russians we believed it We were led to believe that Russians were

prominent in the area. You know any Caucasian really stood out in the area. A
blond tall person would really stand out.

Q.

What did the pictures of the pictures . . . of the POWs show?

A.

POWs tied in ropetied neck to neck in flight overalls, which were very
distinctive.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF M-17 GAS MASKS

The Tailwind broadcast noted that, McCarley said he equipped his men with special gas
masks...called M-17s designed to protect against lethal gas. The AK Report states that
the failure [of the broadcast] to disclose the standard nature of these masks to the
viewer gave McCarleys remarks more supportive weight than was justified. However,
the statements made by various participants give strong support to the notion that, while
they may have been standard issue, the emphasis placed on the use of these masks for
this mission was unusual and notable. It is also clear that the masks were not always
carried on SOG missions.
Van Buskirk stated that an Air Force Colonel had told him before the mission
[b]e sure that you take your gas masks. This stuff can really hurt you. It can kill
you. So I insisted that when I briefed my troops, my platoon sergeant, Jim
Brevelle, I said, You make sure that we all have our masks. Now carrying gas
masks was really SOP, standard operating procedure, but not everybody always

54

carried, sometimes you would opt to bring more ammo. But I made sure that all
my men all had M-17 masks.
Hagen states that those running the mission made a point that we took our gas masks. .
. it was, it was unusual. Lucas recalls the Montagnards being trained to use their gas
masks and says that it was unusual for the Montagnards or us to carry gas masks.
Schmidt said there was huge emphasis on the gas preparation before they went out.
The authors of the AK Report criticize the broadcast because it did not note the
standard nature of these masks, and barely make reference to the corroborative
information set forth above. The use of McCarleys statement is warranted, taking into
account the corroborative statements of men on the mission.

THE REFERENCE TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN

The AK Report states that the broadcast touches on the possibility of non combatants
women and children being killed and that [t]his statement was juxtaposed with and
thus implicitly supported by a statement by [Mike] Hagen that the majority of the
people that were there [in the base camp] were not combat personnel. The AK Report
states that Hagens full statement, referring to a transportation unit, gives a very different
impression to the portion aired.
A review of the relevant portion of the broadcast shows that the statement about women
and children being killed was NOT in fact juxtaposed with Hagens statement, which did
not immediately precede it and which related not to the dead, but to the limited defense
by enemy soldiers in the the ten minute battle. In addition, the statement that the
majority of the people that were there were not combat personnel does not imply that the
balance were women and children. Hagens statement was not misused.
The relevant passage is as follows:
Arnett:

The commandos wiped out the camp in approximately 10 minutes.

Hagen:

The majority of the people that were there were not combat personnel.
The few infantry people that they had we overran immediately. We
basically destroyed everything there.

McCarley:

[Capt. Eugene McCarley Tailwind Commander - title appears on

screen] And as we were going through it, there were the dead bodies.
The count was ninety something, upwards of one hundred.

Arnett:

Including women and children.

Statements from our sources, not specifically referenced in the broadcast, confirm,
corroborate or support that women and children were casualties of Operation Tailwind.
For example, in his first cold call in October 1997, Van Buskirk says:

55

But my friend [name intentionally omitted] was at that camp. He saw a lot of shit
that the Montagnards did. Women who had golf ball size grenades stuck in their
throats. He never got over it. [Name intentionally omitted] was just stricken, he
started to cry. It broke him.
There was no such thing as a probable enemy. Anything that was alive was to
be killed.
Van Buskirk also says:
I know there were two women nurses and three kids. The Montagnards did
shove mini grenades down the childrens throats. But they were told anything
that moves, kill it.
Graves says in his on-camera interview in April 1998:
Q.

How many people total were killed in that village, to your knowledge?

A.

To my knowledge, I have no idea. But just from listening to what I heard from
everybody else, Id say there was probably at least 100 people. Maybe more.

Q.

And these were women and children?

A.

That was everybody; women, children, good guys, bad guys, Montagnards.

And off camera, the following exchange took place:

Q.

So the cover up is of?

A.

That gas was used. That women and children died in the village.
[Montagnards] died. . . . It was a total fuckup.

That Yards

In his on-camera interview in November 1997, Lucas acknowledges that there were
women and children in the camp on-camera:
Q.

Now, two people at least have told me that there were women and children.

A:

Right, there were women and children. But as far as, you know, the people with
me, the women and children had, you know, as a matter of fact, they were
standing just all they were doing was standing around, and so we just, you
know, we just burnt - - we burn the hootches down, because they, you know, they
were in our way.

After stating that if you dont get resistance, you know, women and children out in the
rice paddy or something, and you dont get any resistance, you know, theres no use to
fire on them, Lucas proceeds: I was - - I was told, but I cant believe that anybody
would have, you know, would have killed women and children. If it was, it was they were
firing into the hootches and everything and killed, which has been done a lot.
And later:

56

Q.

So these women and kids were headed for the hills?

A:

Everybody.

Q:

How many?

A.

I cant say. I saw 30, anywhere from 20 to 30 people. Some women, some
children - - some women children just standing around, and some men, you know
standing around, and some that were, you know, armed and running.

Q.

Im told that you all just went through as a killing force through the village.

A.

Right. We were protecting ourselves. We had to. We didnt have time to stop
and ask, you know, are you friendly or are you NVA. Our mission was at that
time to get to the choppers and get out. That was my mission. That was
everybodys mission in that group, to my knowledge, was to get to the LZ and get
out of there. You know, what we run up against, nobody knew where we were.
So we were lucky to get through it.

Q.

And so anything in your path is fair game?

A.

Right. Thats the way I felt.

Q.

And theres no regrets?

A.

No.

DEFECTORS, POWs OR RUSSIANS

The AK Report states that [t]he sources supporting the notion of Caucasians in the base
camp did not always tell consistent stories. The AK Report continues, Perhaps
because the confidential sources discussed defectors, the broadcast largely assumes
the sightings were of American defectors (with a brief reference and a question
concerning the possibility of them being POWs). (AK Report, p 49).
Not only is the AK Report wrong in its assertion (we did not assume anything), but it
misrepresents the broadcast.
Contrary to the AK Reports statement, the report that sources told us they saw
Caucasians in the base camp was not a notion. It was based on Van Buskirk, Cathey
and Hagens first hand statements of their sighting of Caucasians, the report that Graves
received from his recon team and Admiral Moorers statement on this issue.
The broadcast introduced the sighting of Caucasians in the village base camp with the

57

following two statements:

Arnett:

From this position, [Graves] recon team spotted several Americans,

roundeyeseither POWs or defectors.

Graves:

We saw some roundeyed people.

prisoners or whatever.

We dont know whether theyre

Thus the broadcast indicates the uncertainty on this issue, and from the very beginning
raises the possibility that the Caucasians might have been POWs. Furthermore, at the
end of the broadcast, Arnett asks are military officials sure no POWs were killed?
The relevant information we received from our sources can be summarized as follows.
With respect to clear statements that there were American defectors, there is Van
Buskirks account of his encounter with the unrestrained Caucasians wearing GI issue,
one of whom cursed at Van Buskirk with no accent and his statement that he had no
doubt this was an American and Hagens statement that he saw one of these
Caucasians running. There is also Catheys statement that he saw Caucasians that he
believed were American defectors because of the lack of restraint. Finally, there are
Admiral Moorers statements with regard to the defectors killed on Operation Tailwind,
which statements are set forth on pages 15-16. In addition, there was Lucas supporting
statement there was no thought that the roundeyes were POWs rather than defectors.
Lucas also said that the talk upon departure was that defectors were the target. Admiral
Moorer and a confidential source also told us the target was defectors.
To the possibility that the men were POWs, there is Graves statement that his recon
team saw restrained Caucasians.
Graves said there were two separate sightings of Americans;
one at the beginning by [Dennis]. And then the next day as we ground hogged, I
think it was the next day, we took the photo, that is the other guy on my team that
got the snap. The first sighting they were tied up, but in the pictures they were
not.
Although the Caucasians in the camp may or may not have included one or more
Russians, our sources strongly supported the report that the Caucasians included
Americans. For example, Cathey said that the large size of the Caucasian group
indicated that, even if they included Russians, they were not all Russians and included
Americans. We did in fact have a reference to the possibility that these were Russians
in an early draft of the script, but this was taken out at the direction of NewsStands
deputy executive producer, Jim Connor, and executive producer, Pamela Hill, because of
time constraints.
Given what our sources told us and the time constraints of the broadcast, we believe
that our broadcast included a fair and balanced portrayal of the information we obtained.
The introduction of this issue by Arnett, the statements used by the men of Tailwind,
together with the statement that the question remains whether military officials were sure
no POWs were killed, fairly reflects the conflict as to whether the Caucasians sighted
were defectors or POWs.

58

OTHER CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION

The AK Report does not specify what other corroborative information the authors
reviewed. They conclude that this information certainly provided some ancillary support
for the broadcast although its weight does not cure the deficiencies discussed
elsewhere in the AK Report.
Since only one paragraph of the AK Report refers to our corroborative information, we
will set forth some of the other corroborative information here, beginning with certain A1
pilots who will remain nameless due to the pressure and threats that have been brought
to bear on our sources since the Tailwind stories went on the air.
Of approximately two dozen pilots we interviewed, five describe nerve gas or killer gas
or GB as available for SARs; three that insist that the available special last resort gas
was CBU-15 (the deadly sarin nerve gas weapon) and five say that the special gas
available was sleeping gas or simply a powerful last resort gas which was not tear gas.
These pilots include the following four.
PILOT 1
Pilot 1 was one of the pilots who flew on Tailwind. Tailwind was the only mission on
which he flew gas. The AK Report does not attack his credibility.
Pilot 1 said it is unlikely that he dropped nerve gas. However he stated that:
[the gas dropped] was a bit more potent than tear gas. It was very debilitating
and gave us the runs, as well as burning of the eyes and throat.
He states that he would be pissed, embarrassed and disappointed if it was in fact
nerve gas, since he was briefed it was tear gas.
In February 1998, Pilot 1 stated:
after our runs we could hear [the men on the ground] puking and choking
Yes, we dropped CS-Gas a form of tear gas that I think was in powder form in
canisters that came out of the bottom of the dispensers.
Later, when April Oliver interviewed Pilot 1, Pilot 1 said:
I was told it was CS gas. I knew what CS was. Planes would load and stand
and wait with CS for SAR. I basically only had that one munition. It was CS tear
gas. It was a little more powerful perhaps, but the retching is consistent with CS.
It was in powder form.

59

Later in the same interview, he states:

Well, there was this other gas we were briefed about. It was maybe sleeping
gas. I could see that maybe it was loaded for Son Tay. They loaded and flew a
lot of strange things. A select few people were alerted for that rescue. I have no
doubt that if that weapon would have been available they would have been given
access to whatever weapon they had. I have no doubt that that weapon was
there on base. I never flew gas before or after. But to fly lethal gas would be
absolutely inconsistent with procedure, and with my concept of use as a pilot.
I was a little surprised, howeverI looked up CS on the internet before meeting
with you. I was surprised to see it listed as a tear gas. But to drop lethal gas
would be totally inconsistent with my training. CS was dropped in rescues. CS
was a last ditch effort on SAR missions.
He later states:
I was there. My airplane dropped the thing. I was briefed it was CS, it came
from a dispenser consistent with CS. I did not take a gas mask. I could hear
them coughing, choking, spitting and retching. It was debilitating.If what you
are saying is true there is a conspiracy here. That conspiracy put me at risk.
He also states:
I was briefed about the three gases. I was briefed that something like what you
describe that might be available. But I was not briefed for a specific mission with
it.
He later states:
I am certain we had the gas you describe. I will not dispute we loaded it. I will
not dispute it was flown from time to time. But whether we used it or not I cannot
comment, I dont know that even from bar talk.
When asked what his understanding was of what CS tear gas does, Pilot 1 replied:
From what I heard it can be debilitating. It can incapacitate. It causes tearing,
retching. But I was surprised to find out it was tear gas. I thought CS was more
powerful.
We asked Pilot 1 to speak to the camera, but he refused.

PILOT 2 COMMAND RANK

Pilot 2 was a command rank pilot based at the top secret NKP airbase in Thailand. He
flew in support of Tailwind and provided substantial corroborative information. The AK
Report does not attack his credibility.

60

Pilot 2 confirmed that GB was sleeping gas, and was stored at NKP. Pilot 2 stated that:
[p]robably two canisters were put on each SAR aircraft for each mission. Very
seldom was it used. Not very often. The last batch of GB I personally dropped.
It was pretty good stuff. It had a nickname, grubby is what we called it. It also
had a special [one word] call sign.
Q.

You said you personally dropped it [GB]?

A.

I dropped it probably 3 or 4 times.

We examined Pilot 2s flight logs, which clearly stated that he flew a grubby mission
three times on one day on a SAR in [date intentionally omitted to prevent identification]
1970. His log also showed that he flew on Tailwind on September 13, 1970, the failed
extraction day. He could not swear that he actually dropped it on either day, but he
stated that he was certain he has used it. He stated that it would not be carried on every
SAR. Things would have to have gotten grim, there would have to be a lot of troops
down there, then we would say lets try some of this stuff, according to Pilot 2.
He agreed that it was a colorless gas and that it incapacitated real fast, including the
tearing in eyes, vomiting, then losing consciousness.
We did not have extensive briefings on it. It was kinda hush hush.
After he had made the statements set forth above, Oliver and Smith visited the sources
home. During that visit, he tried to backtrack from acknowledging specifically that the
gas was GB. He said that the higher ups preferred them not to know exactly what the
stuff was, in case they got shot down and were captured. This would provide them a
greater measure of protection from enemy interrogation. He said they NEVER used tear
gas in SAR situations, because CS tear gas simply didnt work. It wasnt effective, they
didnt bother with it.
I flew 160 missions and never carried tear gas.I never dropped tear gas, no
tear gas.
This gas incapacitated the enemy quickly and would get the job donethe
FACS told us what to do, we were under the control of the FACSThe pilots
merely needed to know where to place it, not what it was. Everything was strictly
on a need to know basis, and pilots didnt need to know the exact chemical
makeup of the stuff.
He also said a pilot wouldnt be able to tell exactly what was inside the dispenser
system.
This pilot declined to be interviewed on camera for legal reasons and due to the situation
in Iraq.

61

PILOT 3
Pilot 3 was an A1 pilot at NKP in 1970 and became a FAC. The AK Report does not
attack his credibility.
Q.

What can you tell me about incapacitating gas?

A.

We used it all the time on SAR. It was nerve gas. I dont know whether it was
very classified. It was definitely used. Incapacitating agent would do the job on
extractions.

Q.

Was that nerve agent GB?

A.

Oh I dont know. Something like laughing gas. We had no need to know its
exact chemical composition.

Q.

Weve been told that incapacitating gas was GB, sarin, a lethal nerve gas.

A.

Oh I dont know nothing like that. But where we used it was on SAR. It was
when we had a friendly down and he was really surrounded.

Q.

Ive been told that in a situation like that the nerve gas would be used, then a
medic sent down to search the bodies for the roundeyes.

A.

Yup, we would send a paramedic down in a gas mask, and he would look for the
pilot. The PJ [paramedic] was so if the pilot was incapacitated too the medic
could treat him fast. The bodies would be laying out flopping there like dead
bugs. But we were told this agent would not kill you.

Q.

We are researching a story in which we have been told that a nerve agent was
used to recover a very large group of friendliesit happened after you left NKP.

A.

Theres plenty of testimony that we did use nerve gas out there in Laos. There
are a lot of guys who live around here who will tell you that. We did use exactly
that. Nerve gas. What kind of nerve gas, I dont exactly know. This was all
classified. Those technical details.

And later:

Q.

What did it look like from the air?

A.

Not like smoke.

colorless.

Not white I would have to say that the gas was sort of

Later in the same interview:

A.

We used it [nerve gas]. I cant deny it. But you might want to qualify how we
used it..we used it differently from Saddam Hussein, to save our own people.
In the military you are asked to do things. You get orders from above. There

62

were limits to our use. It was in the best interests of our own people, is what we
used it for.
Q.

But what was this nerve gas?

A.

I dont know the chemical formula for it. What was explained to us was that it
was not really lethal. I know exactly how it was used. I never carried an
antidote. . . the decision for its use would come from Saigon. . . The only time we
used it was on SAR, search and rescue, to secure an area. We were told that it
was non lethal, but that the survivor might have to be treated with an antidote.
The PJ had an antidote.Yes, this nerve gas was used. But it was done so
sparingly. The situation would have to be bad and the gas would be really
effective..On SAR, the nerve gas was an agent available. It was used with
discretion. Access to it was controlled. Its code name was classified.

Later in the same interview:

Q.

How many times did you fly it?

A.

I used it in a years time maybe 15 times. I flew with no breaks.

Q.

GB is an odorless, colorless gas that can cause choking, vomiting, and

convulsions, then knock you out, possibly death.

A.

That sounds like it.

PILOT 4
Pilot 4 was an A1 pilot based at NKP in 1970 but was not on the ground at NKP during
Tailwind. Pilot 4 admitted to using tear gas and a very strong nauseous type of
incapacitating gas.
According to Pilot 4:
CBU-15 is the magic number.
We know from U.S. military weapons manuals and Moorers statements (not quoted
here) that CBU-15 is a weapon dedicated to sarin nerve gas. Pilot 4 stated:
We didnt talk about it much. Hardly anyone even mentioned the gas.
Pilot 4 stated that he put a paramedic down in a gas mask once with CBU-15 on the
ground and retrieved a very sick pilot.

63

JOHN K. SINGLAUB
As reported in the Tailwind story, Major General John K. Singlaub, who was the chief
SOG commanding officer in Saigon from 1966 to 1968, stated that killing defectors was
part of SOGs mission. Moorer, as noted above, said of Singlaub with respect to
defectors being a top priority target for SOG:
You can rely on Singlaub. He was heavy into this from the start. He would have
no reason to misinform you. You can believe him.
The following exchanges took place with Major General Singlaub:
Q.

So what are your options when confronted with defectors?

A.

You are reaching a logical conclusion. I would certainly hate to risk mens lives
by going in and capturing them. It would be easier to go in with firepower and kill
them.

Singlaub made the following statement during a telephone interview in April, 1998:
[I]t may be more important to your survival to kill the defector than to kill the
Vietnamese or Russian. Americans can use the fact that they are Americans
with their accent and knowing on the radio what to do. That can be damaging.
Oliver called Singlaub again a week later and re-read to him the above statement, and
asked:
Q.
A.

I just want to make sure I got this right, thats what was said wasnt it?
Yeah, thats right. Of course killing defectors was not in our formal mission
statement. Our mission was to return evaders, escapees and POWs.

MIKE SHEPPARD
Mike Sheppard was the SOG reconnaissance leader, based at Dac To during Tailwind.
Sheppard told us that he did advance reconnaissance for Operation Tailwind in August,
1970. The AK Report does not attack his credibility.
In a telephone interview in April 1998, the following exchange took place:
A.

Well we always had atropine [the nerve agent antidote] and we almost always
64

had the special masks. On most if not all my operations I carried atropine. We
were instructed in the use of it. But yes they were equipped with all that.

Q.

What was your understanding of this gas?

A.

To be very truthful, I dont know the science of it all. But I know we had gases
that were used to immobilize people.

Q.

So this stuff couldnt be CS, could it?

A.

No it was not CS. We did use CS, my men used CS in Laos and North Vietnam
on missions where there were dogs tracking us. CS powder would be very
effective because it would drive the dogs crazy and really slow them down.

Q.

So this other gas though, the sleep gas, was not CS.

A.

No, thats right.

Q.

And then there is BZ, another incapacitant that causes hallucinations and takes
[a] while to work, thats not what this stuff was, was it?

A.

No, I have heard about it, but I have never used that.

Q.

And its not VX, which kills to the touch

A.

No.

Q.

That leaves one weapon left in the arsenal, GB, which causes vision problems,
vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, respiration problems, then convulsions, sometimes
death depending on the dosage.

A.

Well, I dont know if people would die or not. But there was a gas. And that is
exactly how it was described to us. And it would be available to us under
desperate situations. And I know it was in fact used. It was used in certain
situations where the American was in danger of being captured.

Q.

And it was used in Tailwind?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How effective was it?

A.

I understand it was very effective. In Tailwind it did knock people down and
incapacitate them.
It caused them to lose consciousness and go into
convulsions.

Sheppard goes on to say that SOG used this gas more than once. It was much more
stronger [sic] than CS. It had a lot of different effects from CS. people used to call
this incapacitating gas nerve gas. Because it attacked the central nervous system.

65

And later:

Q.

So how often was the special gas used?

A.

I heard about it. The only time I can confirm for certain it was used was Tailwind.
[He later confirmed the use of sleeping gas in the hatchet force mission in the
spring]. There were rumors of these other deep penetrations where we would
have to go in after downed pilots, where it was used.

Sheppard was briefed at a top secret school for SOG recon team leaders about a
powerful gas available for last resort on covert operations. He said in a June, 1998 oncamera interview that:
It would affect the central nervous system, vomiting, convulsions. Loss of your
bowels and loss of other bodily functions.There were different terminologies
used for that gas.the term nerve gas was never used that I know of.the term
was drop dead gas, called sleep gas, knock down gas. . . We were told that the
gas would knock someone down for a period extending up to eight hours..We
were told that it took White House approval to use this gas because of the secret
nature of this type of weapon.
None of Sheppards information is referenced in the AK Report.

SOG RECON TEAM COMMANDO 2

SOG Recon Team Commando 2 was on the SOG reconnaissance team at Kontum.
This is from a telephone conversation with Oliver on March 23, 1998:
A:

You are the lady calling about Tailwind. About the gas.

Q.

Yup.

A.

Yeah I heard about that. They used a gas, the incapacitating one. What were
the call letters? GB, that was it. Thats the shit. The explosive bowels, vomiting,
passout gas. I never saw it, never used it but I was briefed all about it. Thats
what happened on Tailwind, the word was, the stuff really works. They gave us
those special masks for recon, the M-17, cause you dont want to be huffing this
stuff yourself.

Q.

So it was an effective weapon?

A.

Yup. In my opinion we didnt use it enough. We should have used it more. It

could have saved far more lives. When I was working for [name intentionally
omitted to protect identification of source] I was always asking for him to call it in.
but you had to have a six hour lead time to get approval to use it. And that six

66

hour lead time made it practically useless, it would often be too lateIf you
are working inside SOG then you know about all kinds of crazy things. But there
has been a telephone tree warning broadcast about you. We were told if you
called not to talk about the gas. But I thought that was off the wall. I am an old
man. I dont have secrets. You are doing a public service by trying to get the
truth.

Q.

So you are sure the gas was GB, the knockout gas?

A.

Oh yeah. Thats what they taught us at the One Zero school. And [name
intentionally omitted to protect identification of source] was always after me to
make sure we had the right filters to make sure our gas masks work, he would
send me to the supply room because we didnt want to be breathing it.

And later:

A.

I wasnt on the mission but I have heard other people solemnly talk about it.
About how well the gas worked. And that they knew it worked. Because of that
big operation in the fall of 70. It was a large situation and a lot of folks got out
cause of it.

SOG Recon Team Commando 2 also confirmed that he heard the object of Tailwind was
prisoner recovery, American turncoats.

JOHN SNIPES

John Snipes flew as a marine chopper crew chief on Tailwind. He came forward after
the initial broadcast to tell us in an on-camera interview:
They told us that it would not be tear gas, it was some other kind of gas, what
they called knockout gas. That it would put you to sleep.
Afterwards they told us that to use the gas, that they had to wake up President
Nixon to get him to sign off on it.
While the information on possible White House approval is speculation, it goes to the
belief of these men that this gas was not tear gas.

FORT BRAGG SOURCE

This source spent his entire career within Special Forces and is intimately familiar with
the procedures of SOG. He was based out of Kontum in 1970.
This source confirmed that sleeping gas was GB. He had never used it, although he
67

had used BX [possibly a reference to VX]. He wouldnt doubt that nerve agent was
used to get downed pilots out on SAR if thats what the A1 Sandy pilots told you. He
gave hearsay statements that GB had been used on Tailwind.
Q.

So you agree that sleep gas was GB and that was nerve agent?

A.

Yes.

And later:

Q.

But sleeping gas was a weapon you are familiar with its use was top secret

A.

Right, everything was cellularUnless you have a need to know, they dont tell
you.

Regarding defectors, this source states that, despite the PR issues:

Hell, no, we wouldnt capture them [defectors]. Its a no mercy situationIf Id
been there [on Tailwind] it would have been one of my proudest moments.
Cause those defectors were causing recon people to die.Our biggest enemy in
Vietnam was defectors.

THE EXPERT SUPPORT

The AK Report states that sources recounted a variety of symptoms ranging from
[vomiting, convulsing, falling quickly to the ground], dry heaves, burning skin, diarrhea,
dermatitis, choking, spitting, and mucous discharge from eyes and mouth. (AK Report,
p51). The symptoms described and summarized in the AK Report bear very little
resemblance to the symptoms of tear gas used in an open area, according to the experts
we interviewed. This inconsistency with tear gas is not mentioned in the AK Report,
which focuses instead on the precision necessary to make a definitive diagnosis. The
broadcast never implied that the expert opinion constituted a definitive diagnosis. It
said that the gas described by the commandos fits the description of sarin nerve gas.
This is absolutely true of the symptoms described and we do not believe that these
descriptions can be ignored. The broadcast was an accurate reflection of the opinions of
the experts we consulted and their opinions in turn were based on an accurate portrayal
of the symptoms described by the men on the ground.
For the record, the symptoms described by the SOG team members are set forth in
Attachment 2 to this Rebuttal, together with a summary of the views given by each the
experts we approached.
In addition, the AK Report distrusts the quality of the information given by a wounded
commando in this situation. On that basis, one could take the view that any statements
given by those on the ground subject to the gas should be discounted completely (Mr.
Abrams has expressed this view in a television interview). We do not take that view.
68

This was a story based largely on the experience of the soldiers on the ground. We find
it extraordinary that lawyers, from the comfort of a law office 28 years after the event,
would directly undercut the commandos' firsthand accounts. Firsthand information is the
heart of any journalistic endeavor.

RESPONSE TO THE AK REPORTS CONCLUSION

The AK Report reaches three basic conclusions.
First, that the CNN broadcast was not fair. It is always a challenge to produce a piece
that everyone will believe is balanced and fair, particularly where, as in this case, there
were severe time constraints imposed. Nevertheless, we believe that the broadcast was
fair and balanced in relation to the large preponderance of the information provided to
us. Much of the contradictory information presented so uncritically by the authors of the
AK Report, were they to examine it in any kind of detail (as we have done over the
course of many months), is ambiguous and self contradictory. We believe now, as we
did at the time of broadcast, that such a serious, controversial and complex subject
deserved far more time than was given to it. Unfortunately this was not a decision that
was ours to make. In the week following the original broadcast, we aired a second
broadcast which provided the viewer with more information on both sides. At the
direction of Rick Kaplan, we stood ready to prepare a third, hour-long broadcast which
would have been devoted to those with opposing views and therefore would have
provided even more fairness and balance. Rick Kaplan then killed his own idea which
we stood ready to carry out.
Second, the AK Report states that journalistic errors led inexorably to more errors.
Only two examples are given of journalistic errors, both flawed.
First:
The determination that Admiral Moorer had confirmed themes of their story
when he had not led the producers to assert to a significant confidential source
[the Military Official] that Moorer backed the story. The result is that we cannot
know to what degree the source was influenced in his own answers by the
reference to Moorer. (AK Report, pp 53-54).
The AK Report totally misstates what the producer told the confidential source about
Admiral Moorer. In fact the producer did not tell the confidential source that Moorer had
backed the story at all. Rather, she stated in her last meeting with this confidential
source, after he had already given her substantial information (including that the gas
used was GB), that Admiral Moorer spoke with her for seven hours and that Moorer
says that offensive use was justifiable because it saved American lives.
It follows that the AK Reports conclusion that the authors cannot know to what degree
the source was influenced in his own answers by the reference to Moorer reflects either

69

a disingenuous approach by the authors or a careless reading of the transcripts.

The second purported journalistic error cited by the AK Report is April Olivers
reference to a Defense Department document as stating that CBU-15 was accurate
and effective in its use in Operation Tailwind was itself based on a probable misreading
of that letter. The AK Report concludes that [t]he impact [of this letter] on the source
cannot be known to us. What we must conclude, however, is that anything the source
said thereafter of a confirming nature must be significantly discounted.
April Oliver did not refer to this letter in an attempt to have the source confirm that nerve
gas was used the source had already confirmed that. In particular, prior to any mention
of the letter, this source confirmed that CBU-15 was used to prep the area in Tailwind,
and that Yes, absolutely it was effective.
Given the highly placed status of this source, we strongly believe that the reference to
the letter did not affect the sources view of the matter. The AK Report itself states that
this source was a former high ranking officer intimately familiar with SOG. (AK Report,
p7).
The AK report does not cite any other examples to support its conclusion that
journalistic errors led inexorably to more errors.
Finally, the AK Report concludes that the degree of confidence - - approaching certainty
- - of the CNN journalists who prepared the broadcast of the conclusions offered in it
contributed greatly to the journalistic flaws identified in the report. Since the authors of
the AK Report have never interviewed either of us about our views, our degree of
confidence or our certainty, it is extraordinary that they should make this totally
unfounded assertion, which we consider a personal attack on our journalistic integrity.
We presented the information given to us by our sources, from the men on the ground to
the very top of the chain of command.
The AK Report concludes that this:
was not a broadcast the was lacking in substantial supportive materials but
states that those materials.were far too inconclusive to justify the conclusions
reached.
It further concludes that the broadcast was aired:
without sufficient justification and in the face of substantial persuasive
information to the contrary.
The authors do not specify, but presumably the substantial persuasive information to
the contrary is that provided by McCarley, Rose and Bishop. We do not believe that any
independent investigation could have come to the conclusion that there was substantial
persuasive information to the contrary.
The CNN Retraction broadcast on July 5, 1998 concludes:
The question isnt, was nerve gas used. The journalistic question is, can you
prove nerve gas was used. Our story didnt have that proof.

70

The AK Report never expressly raises proof as the standard this story had to meet.
Rather, the proof standard was introduced by CNN management after the story was
broadcast. CNN has now raised the bar for going with a story to a level at or above the
criminal justice systems standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

METHOD OF PREPARATION OF THE AK REPORT

The AK Report was prepared by the well known attorney, Floyd Abrams, and CNNs
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, David Kohler, over an eleven day period
from June 22 to July 2, 1998. Mr. Kohler is a member of, and reports to, CNNs senior
management. We stand absolutely by our reporting, and would welcome any truly
independent and thorough review of the information upon which the broadcast was
based. We believe it is unacceptable to rely on a review co-authored by a CNN
executive who reports directly to CNNs senior management, which, due to corporate
pressures, was predisposed from the outset of the investigation to retract. The AK
Report is not independent, is fraught with conflicts of interest on the part of its co-author,
David Kohler and is thereby tainted.
The AK Report itself suggests that it was designed to absolve CNN management,
including Mr. Kohler, of any responsibility. Following a brief introduction, the AK Report
states that [s]ince this report is highly critical of the reporting on Operation Tailwind, it
may be useful to set forth at the outset precisely what information CNN news
management understood supported the underlying conclusions of the broadcast.
(emphasis added.) Not only does the AK Report fail to precisely set forth all of the
information contained in the briefing book prepared for CNNs senior management, but it
does not explain why in a report highly critical of the reporting of a broadcast it may be
useful to set forth managements understanding of the broadcast. Managements
understanding is relevant only if the report was designed to absolve management of
responsibility.
The amount of time devoted to the preparation of the AK Report was inadequate. The
result is that the AK Report suffers from hasty and sloppy lawyering. During the course
of our eight month investigation, we generated thousands of pages of information,
together with numerous videotaped interviews. It is not at all clear from the AK Report
that Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler reviewed all of this material (as we did during the course
of our eight month investigation). In their report Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler merely state
that [I]n the course of our review, we have had access to the information relied upon by
the CNN journalists in their preparation of the broadcast (AK Report, p. 1) They do
not state that they reviewed all such information. We have been told by CNN employees
that they screened only the videotaped interviews of Van Buskirk and Moorer. How

71

many, and which, tapes and transcripts did they review? We do not know, because
despite broken promises to the contrary and any reasonable notion of an independent
investigation, we were never provided an opportunity to meet with Mr. Abrams or Mr.
Kohler to be interviewed about the transcripts and tapes.
Finally, the AK Report was a rush to judgment as evidenced by Mr. Abrams and Mr.
Kohler, not allowing us to comment, object and correct their errors in the AK Report
before it was finalized and released, despite their promises that we would have the
opportunity to do so. Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kohler's haste begat a sloppy and reckless
report that resulted in an unforgivable violationthe disclosure of sources promised
confidentiality.

72

ATTACHMENT 1
PEOPLE APPROACHED WHO DECLINED INTERVIEWS
Pilot 1: Declined on-camera interview. Concerned about legal implications of a report
that he dropped gas.
Glen Radke, SOG Colonel: Vehemently denied nerve gas was used. Declined an oncamera interview.
Henry Kissinger, National Security Adviser:
interviewed, on or off camera.

Refused multiple requests to be

A memorandum to Mr. Kissinger dated May 21, 1998 from his assistant regarding such
requests states that:
[p]reviously you [Kissinger] wrote, Do not accept blackmail. Answer is now
definitely no.
At the bottom of the memorandum, Mr. Kissinger checked the statement that he again
declines the interview. Mr. Kissinger provided a copy of the memorandum to CNN CEO
Tom Johnson on June 19, 1998. We did not attempt to blackmail Mr. Kissinger into
being interviewed.
Richard Helms, CIA Director: Said he didnt know anything about it, talk with his staff.
A Former CIA Station Chief in Laos: Said he could not confirm or deny SOGs use of
chemicals, but swore the CIA would never use nerve gas. Called the blow up
bridge/diversion for CIA mission of Tailwind a pretty thin cover story.
Morris Adair, SOG veteran: We arranged an on-camera interview, had to cancel it due
to a scheduling conflict. We called him twice again, but he did not return the calls. Over
dinner he had described the glandular profusion the gas caused, but said he didnt really
want to talk about the gas on camera.
John Sadler, Chief SOG: Approached four times, twice on paper, twice on the
telephone. Told us our request was in the trash can.
Retired U.S. Air Force General: Requested that he stay on background. Told us on
background that pilots would not need to know what they were carrying, only where to
place it. When Oliver showed him what the A1 pilots were telling us regarding
incapacitating gas, he told us to stick with it, we had a good story, the problem was
timing with Saddam Hussein. He has now gone on record against the story.
Alexander Haig: Oliver met with him in his office. He did not deny such a mission with

73

poison gas was possible, but said it would not be an approved mission. He said we
would never get anyone in this town to admit it. We invited him to say that on camera
and he responded, Hell, no.
Abrams Military Intelligence Official: Said Abrams did not oversee Tailwind. Said he
did not know much about it. Did not want to go on camera.
Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Declined our request for an
on-camera interview. His press officer initially said that Tailwind was too much of a briar
patch to speak about and that he knew no one at the Pentagon who would volunteer for
such hazardous duty.
Wliiam Cohen, Secretary of Defense:
interview.

Declined our request for an on-camera

In addition, in late 1997, we filed FOIA requests on relevant information and did not
receive a response from the Pentagon until after the broadcast.
We did not approach SOG veteran John Plaster for an interview because he had
previously accused April Oliver of being a baby fing homosexual.

74

ATTACHMENT 2
CHEMICAL EXPERTS
The AK report acknowledges that scientific experts were consulted during the course of
the producers' research who offered "supportive expert opinion" that sarin nerve gas
was used on Tailwind.
Given the time constraints of the broadcast, we were unable to outline on camera all the
supportive chemical expert data we had obtained. Below, however, is a summary of the
reporting which led to the report that the symptoms and nature of the gas fit the
description of sarin nerve gas.
We were advised by the experts of two important matters. First, that sarin nerve gas at
the prevailing temperatures in Laos is NOT LETHAL THROUGH THE SKIN. An M-17
gas mask is sufficient protection, and full body suits are not required for protection.
Another point, consistent among the chemical researchers, is that no such thing as
"sleeping gas" (a non lethal chemical that knocks a combatant out, so that they can
wake up again) exists today in the U.S. arsenal, and certainly did not exist in the U.S.
arsenal in 1970. Both of these facts are supported by the Pentagon's own expert on
chemical weapons, General Walt Busbee, who confirmed them to CNN on camera.
WHAT THE COMMANDOS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE GAS AND SYMPTOMS
1) Van Buskirk. Van Buskirk was consistent throughout the eight month reporting
process, describing the gas alternatively as a "lethal war gas" or sleeping gas.
Describing its properties, he said on camera that "this wasn't a powder, this was a fog.
This was a liquid. I quickly put my sleeves down." He also indicated it was dropped at
the base of the ridgeline, closer to the enemy.
"Our noses were running, we were getting sick, we were vomiting."
"I am vomiting, my nose is running, I've got mucus, mucus coming out of my
men's nose. They are sick and having a hard time breathing....It was very
aggressive. I don't know the chemical makeup of tear gas. Whatever it was it
was bad, and people were sick and wanted to get away from it at any cost."
"Every single American that I can remember was in the latrine on the johns with
terrible diarrhea. We were terribly sick."
"I knew this was the best, the worst, the baddest stuff we could use. I had heard
about sleep gas, my understanding of sleep gas was it makes the enemy go
asleep."

75

2) Mike Hagen. Hagen described the following symptoms:

"They (the Montagnards) were getting sick; they're vomiting, going into
convulsions. I could see a lot of the enemy people laying on the ground going
into convulsions.....I fell to the ground, I started going into convulsions.:
"To me, it was more of a very, very light, light fog. It was tasteless, odorless, you
could barely see it."
3) Jimmy Lucas. Lucas states that he "remember[s] the people wearing gas masks. I
don't remember the effects of the gas." He explains that, since he was on the first
chopper out with Captain McCarley, the other commandos who were rescued after him
are in a better position to describe the nature of the gas.
4) Jim Brevelle. Brevelle says the only thing he knows for sure that was used was
CS tear gas. But then he suggests a super-duper tear gas may have been used on the
ridgeline to incapacitate the enemys gun fire.
"It was a liquidy fog. No question. It hung in there real good. I recall no powder
about it. Most of the Americans had their masks. We were maybe 1500 feet
from the source of the explosion."
"It was incapacitating gas."
"I kept wondering why we weren't being blown away, why the mortars were not
coming. They should have murdered us out on the knoll. There is no question
that the gas hit that ridge, it affected the enemy. It was the only time I ever wore
my gas mask in Vietnam other than to test it."
"I never could figure out why those guys up on the ridge didn't take us out. I
know they had big 50 caliber guns. Course maybe the reason they didn't shoot
was that they were all dead from the gas."
"I frankly don't care if poison gas was used. Whatever it was, I am here today
because of it."
5) Gary Rose.
As noted in the Rebuttal, Roses statements regarding the gas are inconsistent. Given
such inconsistencies, we decided to disregard his statements given before the
broadcast, which suggested that the gas was a lot stronger than tear gas. Since then
he has stated that the gas was tear gas. We do not find him to be credible on this issue.
6) Craig Schmidt.
Schmidt denies adamantly that the gas looked or behaved like the white powder CS tear
gas.
"It would have been a big mistake to use CS."

76

(It felt) "sticky, wet."

Schmidt claims there was no distinct color, and that it worked immediately.
"Profusion from eyes, nose, everything got sticky."
He claims the SOG commandos were on the periphery of the gas drop.
"I guarantee you it was not pepper spray.....We knew it as sleeping gas. We
knew its impact was far greater than CS. CS you can work through. But not
this."
7) Captain McCarley.
As noted elsewhere, Captain McCarley has been inconsistent on the nature and effects
of the gas. On the first cold call, he described it as very possibly nerve gas. On
camera, he described it as more like pepper spray. He said "it burned my nostrils, it
burned my eyes." In a third interaction, he said he had been wrong to call it pepper
spray, that it was an incapacitating gas, but that doesn't mean it was lethal. During his
on-camera interview, when he maintained it was like pepper spray, he described the gas
as being more like a clear fog, than a white powder gas like CS.
"It didn't really look like anything.....It wasn't powder definitely. I mean, it left no
residue on you."
8) Morris Adair.
In a private meeting in North Carolina, Adair described the gas as having more powerful
effects than he had ever seen with a gas. He described a massive glandular profusion
from the nose and mouth of Montagnards who were unprotected, but declined to be
more specific as to further symptoms. He tentatively agreed to an interview, then failed
to return phone calls to reschedule the appointment.
9) Manuel Orozco
Volunteered that a special gas or napalm-like substance was used to rescue the SOG
commandos, even before the producer asked the gas question. Mr. Orozco failed to
return phone calls after that first call, and did not seem to want to pursue the matter.

WHAT THE EXPERTS WE CONSULTED SAID ABOUT THE GAS AND SYMPTOMS
1) Matt Meselson.
A Harvard biochemist, he was consulted by phone multiple times during the eight month
course of our research. He consistently told us the same thing: that atropine is a nerve

77

gas antidote, and that GB would cause many of the symptoms the men described. He
also consistently denied that there was any gas that has ever existed that could be
called a "sleeping gas" or "knockout" gas. In a June 10th on-camera interview, he
stated:
"GB causes vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty breathing, difficulty in vision, muscular
twitching, convulsions, partial paralysis and death."
"CS (tear gas) causes a stinging sensation on the skin and it causes --makes you
want to close your eyes. But it doesn't cause convulsions. It doesn't cause
diarrhea. It doesn't cause all your glands of your autonomic nervous system to
secrete. And it certainly doesn't cause death."
(GB symptoms are) "you defecate, you urinate, difficulty in vision, difficulty in
breathing. Then convulsions, then paralysis and then death."
"Pure sarin has no odor whatever. And it's a liquid a more or less colorless liquid
that evaporates as water does [it is therefore not persistent].
(So-a drop won't kill you?) "No, not on your skin."
He stated that a low dose (for those not in the immediate drop zone) would lead to
"nausea, some twitching, some convulsions."
2) Dr. Fred Sidell
The AK report puts much stock in the views of chemical expert Dr. Fred Sidell. Dr. Fred
Sidell was contacted early in our research. But he insisted he was not the best source
for information on offensive chemical weapons during the Vietnam era, and instead
recommended that the producers speak with a retired Aberdeen chemical researcher
named Bill Dee. We did precisely that, and Dee became a crucial source for us during
our research. Dr. Sidell made the following points to us.
Dr. Sidell argued it could not have been sarin because he did not believe sarin was in
theater during the Vietnam War. (Since our broadcast, Secretary of Defense Melvin
Laird has told the AP that sarin was shipped there in 1967.)
Re: nerve agent. "Stuff comes running from your nose, you fall to your knees,
you go unconscious and then convulse," and "Sarin is a nerve agent, it would
make you awfully sick."
Dr. Sidell does not believe you would be able to board a helicopter after unprotected
exposure to a nerve agent.
3) Amy Smithson
Amy Smithson of the Stimson Center was seen on camera during the Tailwind report.
She is frequently used by CNN as an on camera expert on chemical weaponry. She
was consulted several times by Associate Producer Amy Kasarda during the course of
our broadcast. She says that the vomiting, diarrhea and convulsions are "symptoms that
I would associate with exposure to a nerve agent, not exposure to something like tear

78

gas." Her testimony was largely consistent with chemical experts Robinson, Dee, and
Meselson.

4) Dr. Julian Robinson

Dr. Robinson is a very highly regarded British chemical weapons expert. He told CNN
that CS would look totally different from GB. You would see CS tear gas burning on the
battlefield. No commando described this to the producers. He also said that GB is
dispersed as a liquid with an explosive, and with very little smoke. This was consistent
with the descriptions from the commandos.
He flatly said that CS tear gas is NOT nauseating nor incapacitating.
"If CS did fall into those categories, it would be under the same 'no first use'
category that harsher gases were in."
"In field trials during this era, the U.S. military discovered you would have trouble
using CS in battle conditions because it would be nearly impossible to get it to a
useful concentration."
To the question "what gases cause you to lose consciousness and vomit within
minutes?" Dr Robinson said that "description is spot-on for nerve gas."
5) Bill Dee
Bill Dee was involved in weaponizing chemicals for offensive use during the Vietnam
War. He was the researcher that Dr. Fred Sidell suggested would know the most about
this issue. He formerly worked at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He told CNN:
GB is a liquid, CS is a powder. GB would create a liquid-like fog. CS would create a
particle cloud. GB was aerosolized, but it would be released by explosives. Tear gas
would not be released by an exploding munition.
No strength of CS tear gas will do the same as GB (Sarin).
CS tear gas is a relatively tame compound, it only irritates the mucus membranes.
You really cannot get CS up to a high enough concentration outdoors to provoke serious
reactions.
You would not have anybody dying from CS - absolutely impossible. Convulsions, and
even vomiting --outdoors --is unlikely.
CS is not a knockout gas, no way. You recover immediately from CS in open air. It is
quite discernible as CS by its odor and its white color.
Atropine does no good for CS.
Sarin evaporates faster than water. No, it will not kill through the skin.

79

No combination of tear gases cause diarrhea.

Only four gases were weaponized in the U.S. inventory at this time: CS tear gas, BZ
hallucinogen, GB sarin and VX nerve gas. Large quantities of GB sarin were
weaponized because it responded well to atropine, and was considered a non persistent
nerve gas.
You can progress as far as convulsions after exposure to GB, and still revive, even
without an atropine injection.

80

TAILWIND
REBUTTAL TO THE
ABRAMS/KOHLER REPORT

April Oliver

July 22, 1998

Jack Smith

81

82

TAILWIND
REBUTTAL TO THE ABRAMS/KOHLER REPORT
Table of Contents
Introduction to Rebuttal

CONTENT OF THE AK REPORT

Introduction

11

Admiral Thomas Moorer

Admiral Moorers Credibility
What Admiral Moorer Said
Confirmations Referenced in the AK Report
Confirmations Not Referenced in the AK Report
Admiral Moorers Approval of the Broadcast

11
12
13
13
14
19

Confidential Sources
Military Official
Former Senior Military Official

22
22
25

The Men of Operation Tailwind

McCarley
McCarleys Credibility
What McCarley Said
Bishop
Rose
Van Buskirk
Van Buskirks Credibility
What Van Buskirk Said
Graves
Cathey
Schmidt
Lucas
Hagen
SOG Recon Team Commando 1

29
29
30
31
32
33
34
34
40
45
48
49
50
51
52

The Significance of M-17 Gas Masks

53

The Reference to Women and Children

53

Defectors, POWs or Russians

56

Other Corroborative Information

57

83

Pilot 1
Pilot 2 Command Rank
Pilot 3
Pilot 4
John K. Singlaub
Sheppard
SOG Recon Team Commando 2
Snipes
Fort Bragg Source

57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
65

The Expert Support

66

Response to the AK Reports Conclusion

67

Method of Preparation of the AK Report

69

Attachments
Attachment 1 People Approached Who Declined Interviews
Attachment 2 Chemical Experts

84