Toyah

It'll be news to some, I'm sure, but George Bush and John Kerry aren't the only ones running for office on this year's ballots. There's a lot of other people, offices, and two propositions on the ballot. So yesterday and today I researched all the other things. In general, I plan to vote for the person I think would do the best job representing me in Lansing and Washington. I checked the websites of the candidates: if none was provided and the office didn't seem that important, I went with the Republican nominee, but as you can see, I don't plan on voting a straight Republican ticket.

You can check the Michigan Secretary of State's webpage to see if you are registered to vote, and if so, where your polling place is.

President
George W. Bush (R)

U.S. Congress, 7th District
David Horn, (USTP)

Michigan 58th District: State House
Bruce Caswell (R)

State Board of Education
Nancy Danhof (R)
Ernie Whiteside (L)

University of Michigan Board of Regents
Melanie Foster (R)
Randall Pittman (R)

Wayne State University Board of Governors
Susan Licata Haroutunian (R)
Paul C. Hillegonds (R)

County Treasurer (unopposed)
Gary A. Leininger (R)

County Register of Deeds (unopposed)
Bambi L. Somerlott (R)

County Road Commissioner (unopposed)
Bob Godfrey (R)

County Drain Commissioner (unopposed)
Bill Word (R)

County Commissioner District 1 (unopposed)
Parke Hayes

County Surveyor (unopposed)
Michael Lodzinski (R)

Justice of the Supreme Court
Stephen J. Markman
Brian Keith Zahra

County Judge of the Probate Court (unopposed)
Michael E. Nye

Proposal 1: No
A proposal to amend the State Constitution to require voter approval of any form of gambling authorized by law and certain new state lottery games.

Proposal 2: Yes
A proposal to amend the State Constitution to specify what can be recognized as a "marriage or similar union" for any purpose.

The computer ate my previous post. Over a year ago, I said I'd be disappointed in the President if the WMD were not found in Iraq, and if strong evidence of Iraq/Al-Queda connections did not show up. Neither have come true, so why am I still voting for GWB? Basically, because none of his challengers have convinced me that they will do better. Indeed, I think they would all do worse. Kerry has never demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that he takes the threat of terrorism seriously, in word and deed. With apologies to Keith, Badnarik isn't a serious candidate either. He's too busy serving papers and protesting driver's licences: I want a president who makes anti-terrorism, in any and all forms, his number one priority. I don't think that Bush has done a wonderful job, but I doubt anyone could. And I do not trust any of the challengers to follow the terrorists to every last hole and cave, and eliminate them. I do think Bush will do that to the best of his ability, so I am prepared to live with his other shortcomings.

In other news, here are 50 photo-blog reasons to vote for George Bush.

this weekend is halloween, and this is not something that i normally get really worked up about. however 5/3 for some reason seems to like the gimmick-ness of it. 2 years ago, when i was in training, the management there announced that we "could" dress up. when i arrived not dressed up, they provided me with a costume, wig, face paint...i was a brightly colored clown. this year our new manager was excited to wear his new trailer-trash-hair-in-curlers-moomoo-wearing-lady costume, but he said that our lives would be miserable if he were the only one dressed up...so this morning before work i went to wal-mart and purchased $0.33 pair of knee high hosiery, and just in case that didn't work i also bought a black ski mask. add that to my t-shirt, jeans, and non-descript sweatshirt/jacket i have been a bank-robber for halloween today. as i walked from my car into work, i got a lot of sideways glances, and the biggest fan of my costume today was the cop that came in around 2.

I drove to Brady today to early vote. I have maintained my registration in Brady since high school for mostly sentimental reasons, though I tell myself that my vote will count more, especially for local elections, when made in a small town.

Below are some pictures I snapped while driving around Brady after voting. I was there for not more than an hour and a half before returning to Austin.

I won't tell you who I voted for, but I promise that I didn't vote a party-line ballot. One of the great things about living in rural Texas is everyone on the ballot, whether Democrat or Republican, is conservative and so I can truly vote for the person I think best qualified for the job without worrying about ideology.

Brady still uses traditional paper ballots, the kind where you cast your vote by putting a big X in the box next to the name of the guy or gal you prefer. Unlike other voting methods, there are no computer glitches to worry about and no hanging chads to fight over. Now, I just hope the old McCulloch County courthouse doesn't flood or catch fire . . .

There is something especially thrilling about voting. When I began to make my mark, the gravity of the occasion and the importance of the decision as to who should hold the reigns of power gave me a chill and made me stop and think. It is more than our civic duty to vote, it is also our civic duty to vote responsibly. As I was completing my ballot, I was reminded of Bush’s new ad, The Choice, referencing the choice one faces in the polling booth. There really is a lot at stake, and I think no matter how one would answer a telephone poll or respond to a reporter’s question, I believe that when it comes to it, a majority of Americans will decide that Kerry just doesn’t have what it takes to handle the presidency in times like ours. Perhaps he would be a very good peacetime president, but we are at war, and Kerry is in denial. Oops, I guess I just gave away one of my votes . . .

Enjoy this small taste of Texas, and happy voting!

BTW, Badnarik was on the Texas ballot, Nader was not.

Monument in front of the county courthouse. 

Home of my alma mater, built in 1919. 

Yup. World's Championship. 

John's Western Store - one of the few small stores to survive Wal-Mart. The wind seems to be interfering with John's sidewalk sale. 

McColloch County Courthouse - where I voted. 

I wrote this on March 23, 2003, mostly as a way to work out what I thought about the coming invasion of Iraq by U.S. and allied forces. I wrote it out and saved it so I could look back, later, at what I thought at the time, and see how my thinking had changed. With the election less than a week away, and Iraq a leading issue in the election, it seems timely.

-----------

Terrorism:
The United States feels threatened in a way that it has never been threatened before. This president takes his responsibility to protect American citizens very seriously. He and his administration would like to not merely respond to the threat, but eliminate it altogether, or at least minimize to such a level that it is a low concern.

Iraq:
For various reasons, not all of which have been shared with the American public or the world, the president has decided that Iraq is part of the core problem of terrorism. In addition, he is convinced that Iraq has WMD's and that the possibility that those weapons will be or could be used against the United States is very high. As these conditions have occurred and continued despite U.N. sanctions and inspections, he and his team have concluded that non-violent methods will not remove the threat to the United States: therefore, the only way to really protect the United States in the long term is to forcibly remove the WMD's from Iraq. Which requries removing Saddam Hussein and rebuilding Iraq into a country that will not support terrorism, perhaps will even (in time) work against terrorism.

America and the world:
The current crisis with the United Nations (and NATO, though this is not so evident), in my opinion, is not as sudden as it appears. It has been building for years. Ever since the Cold War ended, observers in the United States and Europe have worried over the growing gap in military power and capability between the United States and Europe. Partly as a result of this gap---and because of the Cold War---Europe is in the habit of letting, even expecting, the United States to lead in any crisis, whether it specifically involves American interests or not. Even so, certain members of Europe, notably France, resent American leadership, even while acknowledging that it is necessary.

In addition, because there is such a tremendous difference between the military and economic power of the United States compared to the rest of the world, only the United States has serious world-wide interests. Other countries have far-flung interests, to be sure, but no others have economic and military interests in every region of the world. Therefore, there are many issues and situations that concern the United States to a much greater degree than the rest of the world.
American diplomacy:
That Bush and his team have been rather high-handed in their diplomatic efforts is probably true. On the other hand, the U.N. is constructed in such a way as to give many countries too much importance. Realistically, does it really matter what Guinea thinks about anything? Yet, in the week before the resolution was pulled by the United States, it held a crucial vote on the Security Council and was being cajoled by the President of the United States. The international policies of the current administration, whatever good or bad they may have done, have revealed the true nature of world politics, which is not and never was, I would argue, the United Nations.

Nevertheless, it is true that the United States should not alienate the world against itself. In the long run (perhaps the very long run), the United States does need cooperation from the world.. Regarding Iraq, however, I would argue that it is a case of the world doing the alienating. I have said for years that Iraq was out of compliance and that the United Nations could, if it had the willpower, resume the war without notice. Yet France has effectively blocked the U.N. from acting.

Still, much, even most, of the world followed French leadership rather than American. This could mean that they do not see Iraq as out of compliance, or that they do not see Iraq as a threat in need of action. It appears to me to be the latter, whereas the United States and the United Kingdom do see Iraq as a threat in need of action. To their credit, Bush and Blair have decided to do what they believe is right, whether anyone else agrees or not. Whether they are right or wrong, I applaud their courage to do what leaders do, and lead.

In sum:
I support war with Iraq, reluctantly. In my opinion, Bush has not shown that the principal causus belli, the possession by Iraq of WMD, is true. The presentation by Colin Powell to the Security Council came close and is part of why I believe the President, but not close enough. Nevertheless, I do not think that this president would be so strongly focused on going to war if he had not himself seen adequate evidence of WMD and a threat to the United States. Therefore, I am willing to trust him on this, and that is why I support the war. If, after the war, no WMD appear, and/or evidence of strong connections with Al Queda or other terrorist organizations capable of launching terror attacks on Americans, I will be deeply disappointed in President Bush and probably lose my trust and faith in his abilities as a leader and president.

I started a new job today. I haven't said anything to most of my friends for fear of jinxing it, and also because I hate having to explain later that some oppurtunity didn't work out. But this time, it did. A position opened up, two weeks ago, in the ITS department. After a couple of days of soul-searching, I decided to abandon my law school plans (temporarily, but possibly permanently) and apply for the position.

I interviewed for it the Thursday of the Gala week, and found out Wednesday or Thursday of last week that I'd gotten the job. Then it was just a matter of working out the transition. Basically, it's more or less the same work I was doing as a student tech for ITS when I was in school, only with much better pay. They're also going to send me to training so I can be the primary Macintosh support person.

The bottom line is that this job is likely to be much more fulfilling; I like the people a lot (having already worked with most of them before); it pays a lot better, and there's lots more scope for training and generally building a good work foundation of experience. I expect to stay here for a good while, although I still hope to move on from Hillsdale eventually. God seems to want me to stay put for now, so I guess that's what I'm doing. It's a good place to live.

Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop of Denver, in today's New York Times.

British intervention in poll backfires:

"Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-@**, tea-sipping opinions."

this calendar year i have attended 8 weddings.
1) my cousin shannon 2) tyler & jeanna from hillsdale pep band 3) shannon hardy
4) jamie and justin from columbia, oh 5) kelli and todd from columbia, oh
6) hardy/ciofani 7) family friend charles 8) kara mahan

2 weddings for every three months this year. now they just need to beat the national average and so i don't have to hear about 4 divorces. there are already 3 weddings on the slate for next year. the hit(che)s keep coming.

Though I have never been what anyone would call a big baseball fan, I appreciate efforts by O'Toole and others to keep me informed, and I do loosely follow a few local teams (Longhorns, Rangers, Astros).

In an effort to add a little more variety to Toyah, I am giving a shout out to my friend Dave Damiani, a former TROLPer, avid Oakland As fan, and columnist at the American Enterprise online. Dave has an occasional column on the As, baseball, and sports that far exceeds anything I could write on these subjects. In the future I will try to let you know when Dave posts again.

Here are more of his recent articles, usually on baseball, but occasionally on other topics:

• Why Jacksonville?


• The Myth of the Clutch Hitter


• The United States of the Offended


• Walking off the Island

Go Socks and Stros!

Good piece by Loyaola (L.A.) Prof. Richard Hasen in Slate on possible ways the 2004 election could be decided in the Supreme Court. Again.

I am particularly interested in Scenario No. 3, Colorado's Electoral College referendum. I think Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were correct in Bush v. Gore. Art. II of the Constitution directs that state legislatures alone have constitutional authority to determine how to allocate electors, and whether or not the Colorado referendum becomes important to the outcome of the election, I am interested in seeing how this issue plays out in the courts. Typically, constitutional mandates of procedure do not cause controversy. The president must be 35 years old (lunar or solar calendar?). Each state gets two senators. Etc. The Art. II argument seems to me the same. Why this argument did not win a majority in Bush v. Gore is beyond me.

I can't tell you how much this stuff interests me. I have a friend who was in the thick of the Bush v. Gore litigation, and listening to him recount the 2000 battle, as nightmarish as a repeat may be, gets my adrenaline pumping. The Bush folks really felt they were trying to combat a Democrat coup d'état! And I have no doubt those on the Gore side felt the same. How I wish I could have been there!

I haven't posted in awhile, sorry about that. Hillsdale College put on a big Gala event last weekend, the kickoff to a big fund-raising drive. For me, that meant working all weekend and collecting lots of overtime (18 hours on Saturday). But things are (mostly) back to normal now, so blogging shouldn't suffer anymore.

There's no early voting here in Michigan, as far as I know. Michigan will go for Kerry so my presidential vote won't matter much. I need to do research on the other things on the ballot (I'm not even sure what else is on it right now) before I vote, anyway.

I made a prediction, shortly after the last debate, that the President's poll ratings would slowly return to their pre-debate levels. I can't find that prediction now but I'm sure I did. Anyway, I've been watching RealClearPolitics closely for a few weeks now, and that seems to be true. His lead has been growing from the the 1's and 2's (immediately post-debates) to 3, 4, 5%. The CNN poll (which has usually predicted Kerry) has Bush at 8%; the average today is 3.4%. Polls can lie, of course, and probably all of them are within their margin of error, but when all or the vast majority of them show Bush with an increasing lead, that looks pretty definite to me.

Personally, I think people are just still very confused about Kerry, which is a reflection of Kerry himself. They may not like Bush all that much, but they know what he'll do. I've been watching the race pretty closely, but I'm still confused about Kerry's plans. Bush ran in 2000 as "not-Clinton", but he also presented plans, like his tax cuts and NCLB. Kerry makes noises about prescription drugs and stem-cell research (yawn) and basically says he'll be Bush, but not Bush. Not much of a campaign platform, if you ask me.

I really hope the margin of victory is great enough that there isn't a flurry of litigation afterwards, but I fear that's a forlorn hope. Bush might do the classy thing and concede if he loses the initial count, but I don't expect that from Kerry. Even if he wanted to (possible), his advisors will tell him to fight, and he doesn't have the moral character to tell them no.

Putin Urges Voters to Back Bush

I can just imagine what the new protest posters will look like.

The following is lifted from today's Ashbrook Update

St. Louis Post-Dispatch says: "As of today, President George W. Bush’s campaign is no longer running TV ads in Missouri - reflecting the president’s confidence that he’ll carry the state on Nov. 2." The Kerry campaign ended its ads one week ago. Bush has had the lead in Missouri since early September, Rassmussen has Bush up 51-45.

This N.Y. Daily News article claims that Bush may be giving up in Pennsylvania, he has no plans to visist a state that he has already visited 39 times. The Bush campaign is denying it. The L.A. Times runs a front-page story on the race in Pennsylvania. Nothing deep. Strategic Vision has Bush up by 2 points [actually, even at 46%], and Quinnipiac has Kerry up by 2 points.

This is CNN’s tally of the electoral votes: Bush 301, Kerry 237. (The numbers include solid leads as well as leaning toward.) Although CNN claims that the margin remains unchanged from last week, they maintain that Kerry’s threatening Bush’s lead in a number of battleground states. And this is RealClearPolitics’ version: Bush 264, Kerry 220. RealClear has a useful chart. Pay special attention to Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico (all are in the toss-up category according to RealClear) during the next seven or eight days. Or, to put it more clearly, if Bush takes Ohio, Kerry can’t win. And, if Kerry takes Ohio, Bush can still win.

Who would Kerry appoint to the Supreme Court? If this CSM article is to be believed, Kerry picks for the Court would not actually be all bad for my side. The idea is that in a narrowly divided Senate, the appointments by both candidates would have to be moderate. For Kerry, the balance might have to be someone who supports Roe v. Wade but does not think the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage. Of course, other issues including federalism, religious liberty, and economic liberty are also at stake, but a moderate Kerry appointee could be as big a surprise on such issues as have Republican appointees. Don't misunderstand me, I'd much rather Bush made the appointments--Thomas look-alikes are much better than O'Conner or Souter look-alikes--but hopefully a Republican controlled Senate will be able to control the damage.

As an aside, the CSM's list of potential appointees includes the ever melodious Sen. Orrin Hatch. I think this would be a fine choice, and possibly one capable of withstanding a Democrat filibuster. As they say, music doth sooth the savage beast.

UPDATE: C. Boyden Gray argues in Wednesday's WSJ that the issue of judicial confirmations was used with some success in the 2002 mid-term elections and can and should be employed with success today, especially with Hispanic voters, many of whom are aware of former D.C. Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada's rough treatment at the hands of Senate Democrats.

Just in case you haven't visited McMichigan's web page recently, HC has launched Buckley Online, a complete archive of William F. Buckley's writings. I have particularly enjoyed the Obituaries section. Worth checking out.

You might also check out VDH's interesting Imprimis article on Patton and the war on terror.

I thought the President did a much better job tonight than he did last week. He didn’t scowl---even poked fun at his scowl---didn’t slouch, and showed a lot of passion. He said what he wanted to say but didn’t endlessly hammer the same half-dozen themes. He cracked a couple of jokes and people laughed.

Kerry did a solid job too: he seems very comfortable in debate. I perceived, prior to these debates, that Kerry was a rather wooden figure, unwilling or unable to connect very convincingly with the electorate. But he’s doing better than I expected. His public addresses are wooden, but he’s done quite well in both these debates. Although nobody laughed at his jokes... (well, they did laugh when he said Charley was the third man in the room hit by his, Kerry's, tax plan)

Not well enough, though, I don’t think. Did he really make fun of the Red Sox? And did I really hear him say that we should appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution in light of the law? On the Red Sox, he was saying that the President was delusional about something, and compared him to fans of the Red Sox, which doesn’t seem to be a good way to get their votes, even if they are from Boston. And on the second, I suspect that is what John Kerry really does think: that the Constitution means whatever we make the law mean. But politically, he shouldn’t say that! I’d also like to know how Kerry can say that he’s not going to raise taxes, and also say that he wants to roll back the tax cuts. How is that not a tax raise?

Bush acknowledged that there aren’t any WMD in Iraq, but insisted that the world is nevertheless better off with Saddam Hussein gone. And he reminded us that everyone---including John Kerry---thought prior to the invasion that Saddam had WMD. I also really liked that he specifically made the point that the war on terror is bigger the Osama bin Laden. I don’t think he said it, but he could have added that the war on terror is bigger than Saddam Hussein, too.

He also specifically stated that there will not be a draft. I have always thought that rumor silly and completely unfounded, and I’m glad Bush has specifically disavowed it. An all-volunteer army is immeasurably superior to a conscript army. Short of a total war for survival, they are simply not necessary, as he said.

Finally, I was impressed by both candidate’s ability to quickly recall facts and appear well-informed of the facts pertaining to whatever question was asked. That’s a pretty tall order, given that they don’t know what questions will be asked. This was a much more interesting and exciting debate than the last one: they spoke with passion and even some anger, especially Bush. I give Kerry a B+ and Bush an A-.

Jim Geraghty from NRO on the election:

Now - picture the Democrats nominating a candidate who takes the war on terror seriously, who wants to finish the job in Iraq, and who doesn't see every foreign policy issue as a rerun of Vietnam.

A Tony Blair-style Democrat would probably be trouncing Bush right now. Karl Rove & Co. are very lucky to have the opponents they do.

I think that's probably true. It's quite possible, even probable, that I'd vote for a Blair-style Democrat. I've said it many times, but I still think it's true: the Democrats missed a great oppurtunity and made a colossal mistake in nominating someone like Kerry.

As you all know, I sent out the last edition of Tigers Weekly on Monday. Here's an e-mail I received

---

Hey - I just want to thank you for the newsletter. What a great final edition! Thanks. I've enjoyed reading it. I just started getting it a couple of months ago. I'm not on your list because I've been getting it forwarded to me from Steve Carter.

Thanks. Look forward to getting any updates throughout the off-season.

Deana Carr

---

Obviously I don't know who Deana Carr is. The ultimately satisfying part is that I haven't the slightest idea who Steve Carter is either! He's not on the list. I wonder how many degrees of separation there are between me and Deana.

Now that I'm done with the Weekly I hope to post more on the Toyah.

CNN.com: Historic Memphis Belle leaving namesake city

The Memphis Belle is moving from Memphis to Dayton to be displayed at the Air Force's national museum. Cool. I highly recommend the Air Force museum and think this will be a good addition. Another good reason for moving to Ohio, if one is considering such a move. :)

it is once again time to change the subject on this blog, and take it in a more dallas-like direction. the baseball playoffs are about to begin...the curse of the cubs continued the baby bears didn't even make it. the red sox should pound on the angels' pitching and then battle the winner of the yankees/twins series (which should be a good one) the coldest team in the league is the team with the best record...the cardinals play the dodgers. and the braves play the hottest team in the league, the houson astros. playoffs...what better way to show hockey that it doesn't matter, than to engross ourselves in the playoffs of baseball...the early season thrills of football, and the not-so-distant start of basketball.

in other news...there is a possible job-change in the future for me. i have posted for a position back in northwest ohio. to complicate matters, it seems that i will be offered that same position here at the branch i where i currently work. so now do i relocate back home or do i stick with what i have been doing for the past couple of years now? agghh...i hate decisions

The IHT reports today on the growing economic and military connections between Europe and China, noting that, at least for French President Jacques Chirac, American hegemony must be substituted with multi-polar geopolitical alliances. Of course America was the first to cozy up to China in order to benefit an incredibly large market, but, as the report makes evident, the new European effort can't escape the added smell of Anti-Americanism. I am totally in favor of free and open markets and am happy to let France make friends with whomever they like (with the exception of under the table deals with Iraqi dictators), so the added politics of the change simply makes the situation more of a curiosity than anything else.

Rasmussen has John Thune leading Tom Daschle 50% to 46% in the South Dakota Senate race. From what I understand, the overall senate picture is shaping up to be another 50-50 split, but I think a Thune victory will go a long way toward breaking the present Senate deadlock.

I think for those of us who want the President to win the election, it was difficult to watch last night’s debate without immediately thinking of the answer we would like him to give to each question. One question on homeland security sticks out in my mind. Kerry attacked Bush for not focusing on homeland security, not giving enough money for borders, police, etc. Bush’s reaction was something like “we are too spending money on homeland security, and I want to stay on the offensive, not defensive.”

That was the right answer, though I would have emphasized that by moving the front in the war on terror to Iraq, we are now forcing the terrorists to focus there and have moved the battle back onto their own soil, not ours.

This brings me to a related topic of discussion in this election: Will Al Qaeda try to influence our elections by attacking us at home? I think everyone agrees this would likely consolidate support for President Bush, and even if it didn’t, would lead to an even tougher time for terrorists no matter who becomes president, defeating the benefit to Al Qaeda of substituting Kerry for Bush. But, this does not mean that terrorists aren’t trying to influence our election.

Last night, Kerry stressed the rising tide of violence in Iraq in the last few months. I think this increase stands to help Kerry and feed his accusation that the Bush Administration has lost control in Iraq. But this is almost surely the terrorists’ strategy: Avoid the ire of Americans and a potential President Kerry by focusing the attacks on American Soldiers on foreign soil while helping to remove their toughest enemy from office. In fact, it would not surprise me if the level of violence in Iraq subsides after the election, especially if Kerry wins. Bush’s strategy of taking the war to the terrorists is working by giving the terrorists targets outside of the United States, but the down side is that in an election year, it is giving the terrorists an opportunity to influence our election. A sort of Catch 22 for the President: disengage the attack on terror in Iraq and risk more attacks at home, or keep taking the fight to foreign soil and risk losing the election over a "blunder." Despite the conundrum, one option is right and one is wrong. I think it was Goldwater who said "I'd rather be right than President."

Of course, this is oversimplifying things a bit. The insurgents also want to interrupt the January Iraqi elections, but I think those fueling the insurgency are hoping that their efforts will also help rid them of Bush.

John Kerry said something last night about how the United States had only two allies in the second invasion of Iraq. That's incorrect, but his point, I think, was that the United States had only two significant allies: the UK and Australia. This is a table comparing the members of the 1991 Coalition with the 2003 Coalition. Countries in bold participated in both coalitions.

The first coalition had 35 members, the second, 32. Many countries which were not in the first joined in the second; likewise, many which were in the first declined to join in the second. France and Germany did not participate in the second, and Russia did not contribute to either coalition.

Regarding Kerry's point about significant allies, if he means those allies capable and willing to contribute to the war-fighting abilities of the coalition, I think he's right. But he's right about both coalitions. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia are the strongest military presences in both coalitions. Other countries that took a leading role in this coalition, such as Poland and Spain, were also members of the last coalition.

The only major difference I see between 1991 and 2003 is the absence of France, Germany, and most of the Arab states. As significant war-fighting allies go, none of them count, in my opinion.