I thought about what you said the entire day. I was bothered that after 9 pages of so many reasons supporting Kerry, you commented that his blocking of the use of force against Iraq in 1991 was enough reason for you not to vote for him. So I was thinking and it and it just didn’t make sense. Why would Kerry not support use of force when Iraq overtook Kuwait, but he would support force in similar scenarios like Bosnia, Panama, and Kosovo? At first I thought because he was partisan, but that wouldn’t explain the backing of Panama. What I discovered was quite interesting, and even more troubling.

When Iraq overtook Kuwait, President Bush Sr. brought in a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, who testified that Iraqi soldiers tore hundreds of babies from hospital incubators and killed them. Bush Sr. quoted the story of Nayirah everywhere he went to gain support for the war. When Senate Democrats supported only sanctions against Iraq (this is what Kerry backed)-- the blockade of trade which alone would cause hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die of hunger and disease -- and waffled on endorsing the policy Bush wanted to implement, outright bombardment, the story of Nayirah was played over again generating enough votes in the Senate. How could you not back Bush with such a devastating story.

What was left out was the fact that Nayirah was not an ordinary Kuwait girl as Bush Sr. had everyone believing. She was the daughter of Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the United States. The most interesting part about the entire story is that the massacre as Nayirah described, never occurred. Wikipedia, the most referenced online encyclopedia, writes concerning the event here. This link also provides a strong case as to how the story of Nayirah influenced the congress. It should also be noted that Bush Sr.’s war with Iraq passed 52-47, hardly a strong margin. In fact, it makes you question how strong the evidence was that persuaded the congress. Even George W. pulled more support then this with his war in Iraq.

The reality is this. Iraq’s attack on Kuwait was far short of barbaric. Go here for a very in-depth look at the war…very informative. That link also spells out Iraq’s justification for war (not that I agree). When Iraq attacked Kuwait, Kuwait pretty much fell over and let them walk right in. There was no battle, and no form of genocide. In all it has been estimated that only 200 citizens of Kuwait lost their lives. In comparison over 350 coalition troops lost their lives and anywhere between 25,000-75,000 Iraqis. Now with all this being said, it is not surprising that near half of the Senators, including Kerry, were not so swift to support Bush’s attacks. The thinking was, Diplomacy might be the best solution. Kuwait was no Kosovo where one million Albanians lost their lives through “ethnic cleansing”. The same with Bosnia.

I just wanted to say that your question has taught me a lot. I had no real idea of what the Gulf War was about except for the distorted belief that Iraq was killing thousands of innocent Kuwaitis. I also wanted to comment that Kerry’s vote for diplomacy did not condone force, he just believed that we had not exhausted all of our political tools. I have also come to the conclusion through my readings that there might be an alternative reason for Bush Sr.’s decision to attack, especially with hind sight relating to Nayirah’s story. And finally, all of this research has not detracted from my perception of John Kerry.

Let me know if you would like to discuss this further. And of course I expect you to do your own research on this subject to confirm what I have written.

~Matthew