Replies

U.S. deploys combat troops to former Soviet republics

10/03/2001 .... http://www.dallasnews.com/attack_on_america/response/stories/486649_troops_03nat.A.html .... More, see WashingtonPost.com

Washington Post

WASHINGTON – The Army's 10th Mountain Division sent more than 1,000 troops Tuesday night on an unprecedented combat deployment to the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, bringing the total U.S. force amassed overseas for the war on terrorism to more than 30,000 uniformed personnel, defense officials said.

Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, said the U.S. military also had 350 combat aircraft, two carrier battle groups and a Marine amphibious ready group in the theater of operations.

To pay for the deployments and cover other war-related expenditures, Ms. Clarke said, the Pentagon has received $4.25 billion of the first $8 billion allocated by the Office of Management and Budget in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The deployment of more than 1,000 troops from the 10th Mountain Division marked the first time a regular Army infantry unit has been sent on a mission to a former Soviet state, an Army official said. It also is the first major deployment of a regular Army unit – as opposed to the small, elite Special Forces units – in the campaign against terrorism.

"Simon (Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council) said. "One can understand why the Saudis didn't want him -- he was a hot potato -- and, frankly, I would have been shocked at the time if the Saudis took him"

"...Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said, on efforts launched to persuade the Saudi government to take bin Laden.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since bin Laden had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, denouncing the ruling House of Saud as corrupt. Riyadh had expelled bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in 1994, but it wanted no part in jailing or executing him.
Clinton administration officials recalled that the Saudis feared a backlash from the fundamentalist opponents of the regime. Though regarded as a black sheep, bin Laden was nonetheless an heir to one of Saudi Arabia's most influential families. One diplomat familiar with the talks said there was another reason: The Riyadh government was offended that the Sudanese would go to the Americans with the offer."

Why weren't the Saudis willing to take him?

Typical Clinton Lies. We could have simply taken bin Laden and turned over to the Russians.

bin Laden was responsible for thousands of Russian deaths in the 80's and early 90's. They would have loved to have killed him. No trial needed.

That kind of stuff has been done hundreds of times. When our laws are two squemish to do something we drop the bad guy off with some nation that is not and has reason to kill him too. There was no need to tell the Saudi's unless Clinton had a good Reason to keep bin Laden alive.

This story in the Washington Pest is needed to cover Clinton's ass. Why?