October 27, 2011
Oct 27 00:36 Grand Forks Herald endorses Cravaack plan Oct 27 08:02 California to commit environmentalist-assisted suicide Oct 27 08:49 Tarryl running in the Sixth? Says who? Oct 27 14:21 Suicidal Democrats? Apparently Oct 27 16:26 Ryan Excoriates "Divider-in-Chief" Oct 27 17:25 Chaffetz takes Napolitano to the woodshed Oct 27 20:00 The Republican Congress? Oct 27 23:17 Sen. Klobuchar's Iraq ignorance continues
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Grand Forks Herald endorses Cravaack plan
A high-speed rail line from Duluth, which Cravaack represents, to the Twin Cities is a nice-to-have but not a need-to-have item, he wrote.
Besides, 'we just averted a debt crisis, and the solution we reached doesn't reduce our massive deficit, it merely slows its growth,' Cravaack continued.
'The wisest course of action for us is to not spend money on a venture that can't pay for itself. Instead, we must first attend to the crumbling roads, the bridges in urgent need of repair and the incomplete highway projects that we have throughout the state.'
Cravaack has a point, and not only about the Duluth-Twin Cities rail proposal. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, Republican governors have balked at the matching funds that high-speed rail projects in their states would require.
As a result, President Barack Obama's proposal for a national network of high-speed rail lines, a centerpiece of his original stimulus plan, has been sidetracked to a railyard storage area and seems very unlikely to emerge.
The reality is that the construction jobs aren't worth the expenditure the state will incur for the next quarter century. In addition to the cost of maintaining service, otherwise known as subsidizing a failing project, there's the state match to the federal dollars.
Whenever these types of projects come up, liberals, especially like Tarryl Clark, argue that it'd be terrible to waste the federal dollars that've been directed to Minnesota. That's the wimpiest, most non-compelling argument in the history of justifying pork.
Why is it a "terrible waste of federal money" if the project can't sustain itself? Why isn't it smart to tell the federal government to stick to doing what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution?
Since when is it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a choo-choo that runs from Minneapolis to Duluth, MN? I could understand it if the choo-choo ran from Minneapolis to Duluth, GA. That'd be a project that involves multiple states.
The other point that the Herald makes is important. Shouldn't we be focusing our money on the things we need instead of on the things that buy votes with other taxpayers' money?
This is exactly the type of project that Tarryl Clark and Sen. Klobuchar prefer. First, it's a headline-grabber, which means another photo op to schedule for two porksters who love splashy headlines.
'Instead of pursuing a new rail line, let's first spend our time, efforts and limited resources fixing what we have,' Cravaack suggested. He's right, and maybe, just maybe, that cause of 'fixing what we have' can inspire the nationwide, bipartisan and determined consensus that high-speed rail clearly doesn't have.
Thankfully, stubborn people in the House of Representatives will say no to President Obama's porkfest because this administration put us on a collision course with bankruptcy. If we don't change directions, we'll be Greece before we know it.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:36 AM
No comments.
California to commit environmentalist-assisted suicide
Cap and Trade is a God-forsaken idea whose time should never come. That's why this editorial caught my attention. Here's what I noticed first:
How companies might earn such rewards, other than by greatly reducing their output, is a bit of a puzzle. "There is no way to comply," said Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. "Not only is it extremely expensive to try to comply with the standards in the medium-risk category, there is no approved technology that reduces emissions and enables food manufacturers to come in below the emissions cap set by CARB and still maintain the current level of production."
While Ms. Nichols' promised "rewards" may be nebulous, the government will be fully capable of punishing those who do not comply. There will be punitive fees and penalties for companies that fail to reduce emissions enough to satisfy the air board's arbitrary overseers.
Why any state would voluntarily commit environmentalist-assisted suicide based on discredited junk science is beyond me. There's a reason why California is an economic basket case and will continue to be one. It's because they're freaking nutjobs.
This paragraph would be laughworthy if it wasn't so boneheaded:
Businesses emitting more than the government says they should will have to use "allowances", credits, to make up the difference. Credits "will be mostly free when the program starts" on Jan. 1, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. But eventually they will have to be purchased at an auction run by a centralized government "market," which, of course, is a contradiction in terms.
Will this "market" operate like the stock market and other markets? Let's get serious. It's government-run, meaning some people get more favorable treatment than others:
As with other government-administered markets, some companies will be required to buy a greater percentage of allowances, while others will be allowed more free credits, all at the government's discretion .
I bet I've got company in thinking this 'market' is perfectly set up for cronyism, kickbacks and corruption.
When Republicans control the Senate and the White House again, they should send the message to California that there won't be any Obama-styled bailouts for them. They should tell California that US taxpayers won't foot the bill for their stupidity.
If California wants to be an economic basket case, that's their constitutionally protected right thanks to the Tenth Amendment. If they want to make idiotic decisions, let Californians pay for those idiotic decisions.
The term too big to fail is mostly associated with banks and other financial institutions. I'd argue in this instance that term should apply to states, too. Too big to fail should quickly become a quaint term in a history book ASAP.
As with most liberal 'paradises', California's economy has been decimated by reckless spending and idiotic regulations. If they continue making these types of decisions, then expect them to start losing people and businesses to Nevada, Arizona and Utah at an accelerated rate.
Labor and capital are mobile. California should've learned that through this year's census. The census showed that, for the first time in decades, California didn't gain additional US House seats.
It isn't difficult to predict that California will start losing House seats starting with the 2020 census and reapportionment.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:02 AM
No comments.
Tarryl running in the Sixth? Says who?
This article in The Street is a shoddily-written article, missing a number of key points. Simply put, they didn't do their research. Here's the prime example of their shoddy journalism:
There are plenty of representatives who could face heavy reelection opposition: Look no further than Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), who has spent a significant amount of time on a sputtering presidential campaign.
The Minnesota congresswoman was reelected by nine percentage points in 2010, but challenger Tarryl Clark is expected to return for a second run at the district. The more time Bachmann spends in Iowa, the more time Clark, assistant majority leader of the Minnesota Senate, can use to stage a serious challenge in District 6.
If The Street had paid attention, or if they'd just googled Travellin' Tarryl, they would've known that she's now attempting a run as a carpetbagger in MN-8. That's if the Minnesota Supreme Court doesn't redraw the map passed by the legislature. If the court essentially agreeing with the legislature's map, Tarryl will wind up going who knows where.
If the state Supreme Court keeps the legislature's map intact, Tarryl would face Collin Peterson in a DFL primary. That's unless Collin Peterson decides he's had enough of being part of the minority and retires.
If the Supreme Court changes the legislative map, she might jump into another race. If that happens, Tarryl is history. She'd get thumped by in MN-6 or MN-7.
Another part of The Street's article that's wrong is that Michele didn't defeat Tarryl by 9 points in 2010 . Michele won by 13 points, Michele's biggest margin of victory at the congressional level. That's a point higher than I'd predicted but I was still mighty close. (Then again, I'm the only journalist who predicted Chip Cravaack's victory .)
Tarryl is a legend in her own mind. She couldn't win a congressional race if it wasn't in MN-4 or MN-5. She was a semi-impressive candidate in 2006. Then the worst thing possible happened to Tarryl. She had to start casting votes. Those votes revealed that she isn't the moderate she's tried casting herslf as.
The minute that image of moderation disappeared, so did Tarryl's chance of winning a congressional race.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Oct-11 04:20 PM
Do you know anything new about Maureen Reed?
She was the physician and healthcare management expert who stepped aside last election for Clark. She withdrew from a DFL primary contest.
Is Reed again interested? Hopefully, yes.
She'd clearly be an upgrade over the last two CD6'ers we've suffered.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Oct-11 04:29 PM
Eric, I haven't heard anything about a possible run by Maureen Reed this time around. You're right that she'd be a major upgrade over Tarrylable Tarryl & El Tinklenberg.
Suicidal Democrats? Apparently
I've often thought that Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I still think that, especially after reading this article . It's apparent that they're suicidal and not too bright, too:
Democrats have proposed more than $1 trillion of tax increases in a $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan that they dropped with a thud onto the negotiating table of Congress's supercommittee.
The plan proposed Tuesday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and backed by a majority of Democrats on the panel was presented as a grand bargain that cuts entitlements, stimulates the economy and goes much further than the $1.2 trillion deficit cut required under the August debt-ceiling deal.
More than 50 percent of the deficit reduction in the plan would come from tax increases , one source said.
Let's get this straight. Democrats are insisting that the deficits be brought under control by feeding the federal beast at a time when its appetite is out of control? I wrote here that "Sen. Baucus and the Democrats can take a hike. Increasing taxes to pay for more pork isn't responsible."
The federal government has a spending problem, one that Democrats refuse to admit exists. Instead, Democrats continually insist that we need to 'invest' in pork projects like choo-choos. Democrats continually insist that we need to bail cities and school districts out rather than forcing them to actually make smart decisions so that they don't have to actually reform themselves.
What's the worst way to cure an addict of their addiction? Isn't it to give the addict more of what they're addicted to? For instance, wouldn't it be wise to not give an alcoholic a bunch of money and a ride to the licquor store? Wouldn't it be foolish to give a drug addict a bunch of drugs?
The federal government has a nasty addiction to spending way too much, especially during this administration's time in office. The last thing we can afford is to give Democrats more money to spend on things we don't need and can't afford.
If there's anything that's certain, it's that the American people are tired of the reckless spending. They're tired of the bailouts. They're tired of the Solyndra/SunPower scams that they're going to have to pay for. They're tired of the crony capitalism, which, by the way, isn't a picture of capitalism done right.
Democratic aides said the GOP is once again walking away from a grand bargain that would put the U.S. on a solid fiscal ground, noting that Medicare cuts unpopular with the liberal base, reportedly totaling around $500 billion, were included in the deal.
First, I'm skeptical that the Medicare cuts are real. I'm betting that they're illusions, not real. Second, the Medicare cuts could stop the minute the next congress is sworn in. There's no way to guarantee the cuts in out years.
This is nothing more blah, blah, blah spin from the Democrats.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) pushed back on the calls for stimulus during the hearing, getting Elmendorf to acknowledge it is impossible to prove that the stimulus law passed in 2009 worked.
Thanks to Sen. Toomey, these Democrats can't keep pretending like their reckless spending can continue. If they want to keep proposing reckless spending initiatives, they'd better prepare for the consequences next November.
Having Democrats on the supercommittee pushing another stimulus bill plus the biggest tax increase in US history is a recipe for electoral disaster. That type of behavior will position them for a bigger loss than 2010.
People know that our fiscal house isn't in order. They know that we're spending way too much. They're tired of the bailouts. This has to stop before we're Greece.
If Democrats insist on being worthless stewards of the taxpayers' money, they'll pay a steep price next November. And yes, that's a certified prediction.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 2:21 PM
No comments.
Ryan Excoriates "Divider-in-Chief"
Last night, Greta interviewed Paul Ryan. She focused initially on the speech Chairman Ryan gave earlier in the day at the Heritage Foundation. Here's the video of the interview:
Of special interest to me is Chairman Ryan's description and analysis of President Obama's habit of strawman arguments:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, are you for dirtier water or dirtier air?
RYAN: No, I'm not, actually.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So is that a lie?
RYAN: Well, it's not accurate. I think what it is...
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, but -- (INAUDIBLE)
RYAN: It's a strawman argument. It's basically trying to affix to your opponent positions they don't have, to then knock them down and win the debate by default. This is why I call it an intellectually lazy argument because it's not a sincere debate on the facts. It's not a sincere debate on the people who disagree with you on their actual positions.
I can't agree with Greta that President Obama's habit of making strawman arguments is a lie. That said, I wouldn't hesitate in calling the tactic cowardly and deceitful. President Obama doesn't have the cajones or intellectual firepower to take Chairman Ryan on in an honest debate. Chairman Ryan, like Speaker Gingrich, would mop the floor with his backside.
Imagine a debate with an objective fact-checker doing instant analysis of the people's debates. Imagine telling Chairman Ryan and President Obama that a referee will blow the whistle if either politician used a strawman argument. President Obama would be demolished before the debate even started.
If he had to make peer-reviewed arguments for his policies, he'd be intimidated from the outset.
This is a statistic worth highlighting:
VAN SUSTEREN: But if you're, but if you're saying you're for dirty water and dirty air, that's not a different ideology, if you tell me, if you tell me that's, quote, not accurate.
RYAN: The point I'm saying is focusing on class warfare, that I think flows from a philosophy that government ought to equalize the results of people lives instead of equalizing outcomes. Equal opportunity versus equal outcomes, very different political philosophy. And I think the policies that he's been pushing are more in this political philosophy area. And the result of it is more wealth redistribution, higher punitive taxes on job creators, less prosperity.
And so instead of focusing on the kinds of ideas that actually create jobs and economic growth, instead of working with us on these ideas, we're preying on people's (INAUDIBLE) anxieties.
Let me say it this way. Eighty percent of all businesses in America, they file their taxes as individuals, as people, as subchapter S corporations. He wants to bring their top tax rate to 50 percent! You and I come from Wisconsin. Over the shore of Lake Superior, the Canadians next year, they're taxing their businesses at 15 percent. And President Obama is saying the top tax rate that most of our jobs come from, those successful small businesses in America, should go to 50 percent. And he's using this class warfare rhetoric, envy, resentment, fear to sell this really job-killing agenda. And that's...
People who say that tax rates don't matter will argue that businesses aren't paying their fair share. People that run businesses might not move from Wisconsin to Canada but they won't hesitate moving to another country doesn't have socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks a 50% marginal tax rate on job creators will grow the economy are kidding themselves.
Democrats on the Supercommittee proposed a huge new spending increase and the biggest tax increase in US history. The economy is struggling and we're drowning in debt. The last thing we should be doing is raising taxes in the name of fairness while spending recklessly.
Chairman Ryan is exactly right in saying that we don't need a Divider-in-Chief, which is exactly what President Obama has turned out to be.
It's time to end our long national economic nightmare. It's time, using President Obama's own words, to vote him off the island. Next November can't come soon enough.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:26 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Oct-11 08:54 AM
Ryan: "The point I'm saying is focusing on class warfare, that I think flows from a philosophy that government ought to equalize the results of people lives instead of equalizing outcomes."
I don't understand that. Exactly how is a "result" different from an "outcome?" Was the man's mouth racing ahead of his mind? The dominant organ of the two?
If he's for equal opportunity, then Bravo. I wish I had been born with Rockafeller wealth. However, I never had that opportunity. If he's for sharing the wealth, giving every child an equal footing in the inherited wealth situation so that they each truly have an equal opportunity, then, again, Bravo.
But I do not believe that's what he means, not at all. And instead he is misusing the word "opportunity" and doing it with crass politician's motives to oversimply and ignore part of the truth, but to sound FOX pundit smart.
Ryan's not part of any cogent solution, but rather, a poster child of the two-party stranglehold problem.
Ryan's a hack.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Oct-11 09:03 AM
First, Ryan's ideas are a major part of the solution to America's problems.
Next, I watched the interview. Yes, I'm certain that Chairman Ryan mean opportunity, not result.
Chaffetz takes Napolitano to the woodshed
In an incredible interrogation, Rep. Jason Chaffetz utterly demolishes DHS Secretary Napolitano. Here's the video of Rep. Chaffetz' interrogation of Secretary Napolitano:
What's stunning is the long list of "I don't know" replies from Secretary Napolitano. The other thing that's stunning, though predictable, is Napolitano's response to Rep. Chaffetz' question on what percentage of the border is secure:
NAPOLITANO: Oh, I think that having lived near...
CHAFFETZ: I have to go pretty quick here. I'm just looking for a number.
NAPOLITANO: Having lived and worked on that border most of my life, I'd say that it's as safe as it's ever been...
CHAFFETZ: But you don't have a percentage?
NAPOLITANO: It's an ongoing project.
She then admits that she's never spoken to Eric Holder about Operation Fast and Furious. What follows from there borders on the surreal. Finally, towards the end of the interrogation, Rep. Chaffetz demolishes Secretary Napolitano:
CHAFFETZ: How is it that you can make the claim that the border is more secure now than it's ever been and yes, the Obama administration purposely allows 2,000 guns to be released knowing that they're going to go to Mexico with hundreds of people getting killed by those weapons? Two dead US agents and yet you don't even know if we've even detected 1 of those guns.
In fact, on Jan. 14, in fact, you did detect someone in New Mexico. There were 8 guns found. They didn't even run a trace on them and you let those guns go into Mexico. I find that absolutely stunning and for you to have two dead agents and to have never had a conversation with Eric Holder about Fast and Furious and about this is totally unacceptable.
It's difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Napolitano is that stupid and that incompetent. It's infinitely easier to believe that Napolitano was covering for the administration, being the faithful trooper who took one for the team.
Napolitano didn't know how many agents had been killed along the border. Napolitano didn't talk with Holder about Operation Fast and Furious. Napolitano wouldn't admit that she knew about the flood of weapons pouring into Mexico, a claim I can't believe. For Napolitano to then say that the border is more secure than it's ever been is close to perjury.
We didn't have a dozen border patrol agents killed during the Reagan administration, the Bush 41 administration, the Clinton administration and the most recent Bush administration. COMBINED.
We certainly didn't have weapons pouring into Mexico at the stunning rates that they're pouring into Mexico now. By every imaginable metric or statistic, the border has never been this dangerous. The cartels never posed this threat to Americans. The drug trafficking has never been worse than it is today.
I appreciate the fact that Rep. Chaffetz didn't try keeping his cool in this situation. A dozen people dying as a result of this administration's incompetence is something worth getting hot under the collar about. The DHS secretary not knowing anything on a wide range of issues is, likewise, something worth getting hot under the collar about.
For Secretary Napolitano to repeatedly state that the border is secure, everything is fine, etc., when American guns are flowing into Mexico and when Mexican drug cartels are killing Americans is infuriating.
That this administration hasn't fired both Napolitano and Holder speaks, nay screams, to this administration's incompetence and corruption. They've got to go. Next November can't come soon enough.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 28-Oct-11 09:20 AM
Sigh....that's my guy. I am so bummed to have been drawn out of his district. Hopefully my new rep will be just as stellar.
LL
The Republican Congress?
Allahpundit's post about the Democrats' latest talking point has got me thinking. First, here's what Allahpundit wrote about in his post:
'I'm the first one to acknowledge that the relations between myself and the Republican Congress have not been good over the last several months, but it's not for lack of effort,' Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos earlier this month:
'I'm sure the president would like it to be creating jobs more quickly. And if the members of the do-nothing Republican Congress would actually put a couple of oars in the water and help us, [we could] do these things like [Mississippi] Gov. [Haley] Barbour mentioned that make so much sense,' Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) said on CBS's 'Face the Nation' earlier this month:
Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said, 'Democrats are trying to give ownership of Congress to Republicans because the institution is dysfunctional and not addressing the jobs problem, and this is a way to tie blame to the GOP.'
I could write a detailed post exposing the Democrats' dishonesty. In fact, I might do that next week. Still, I think the best way to illustrate the Democrats' dishonesty is by illustrating the Democrats' dishonesty in cartoons and animated videos.
Let's face it. We're a visual society. We learn faster through visuals than through manuals.
Here's my challenge to the Army of Davids out there: Hit me with your best videos and cartoons. Post them in the comments section for this post. Post them on your website, then send a link to your entry. Get creative. Be irreverant. Most importantly, highlight the fact that Democrats don't have ideas, solutions or integrity. Make the most compelling case possible.
The upshot of this project is simple: If this Army of Davids does what they're capable of, the reward will be alot fewer Democrats in the Senate in 2013.
Have at it. Let's have some fun at the Democrats' expense with this.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:00 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Oct-11 08:45 AM
Not to say I'd cross over and vote for a Republican, with Huntsman the least offensive to a progressive in this batch of wannabes, but isn't it strange to you that executive orders that could have been issued anytime are starting to flow quick and fast these days? An act of integrity would have been a prompter mortgage impact alleviation effort, the earlier the better, and deeper - less of a bandaid answer. Ditto regarding the student loan evils. Too little too late IS faint praise. And the man is damning himself with faint praise, in my view, after my being led to expect some kind of performance fitting a slogan of "Change." He should have combined "Hope" and "Change" to have said, "Go hope for a change." The man is far too much like Bush and Clinton, too little like Wellstone. A disappointment. But other than Ron Paul who would take on the international banking cartel at the national [Fed] level, the Republican wannabes are rehashing same-old same-old trite themes. Stuff they've said, stuff that has not worked when Bush was in, stuff that has little to no promise of working. Ron Paul is the only one with ideas and not hack rhetoric.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Oct-11 08:59 AM
Eric, you aren't paying attention if you think that Ron Paul is the only Republican who'd take on the corrupt bankers. Michele & Newt have been highly critical of these corrupt bankers. More importantly, they've proposed steps to get rid of too-big-to-fail.
President Obama's EO's have been repulsive to democracy-loving Americans of all stripes. The student loan forgiveness plan is particularly odious. Forgiving student loans without attacking the real problem is putting a band-aid on a cut needing stitches.
Newt was just interviewed on CBS about the student loan program. He said that there's a study out that says "by the year 2014, there will be 1 administrator or 1 clerk for every teacher" in colleges.
Question: Why do we need that many administrators? Better yet, do we need that many administrators? Best question: How much is bloated collegtiate administration adding to students' tuitions & to their student loan debt?
Frankly, it's disgusting that this administration will offer the bandaids and the aspirins without offering the 'medical treatment' that's needed.
Sen. Klobuchar's Iraq ignorance continues
Thursday, Sen. Klobuchar released this statement about the Obama administration's troop withdrawals from Iraq:
'I have long supported a military policy in Iraq that focuses on the responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops and the transfer of authority to the Iraqi government. Our troops have shown tremendous courage to get us to this point. The mission of our Minnesota National Guard troops in Kuwait and Iraq to bring our soldiers and equipment home from Iraq is the right one.'
The first thing worth noting is that Sen. Klobuchar, like most Democrats, didn't say she's "long supported a military policy in Iraq" that focuses on defeating the radical jihadists. That's never been a consideration for Sen. Klobuchar. In fact, she's often gotten her facts wrong . Here's what she said:
Last week, officials in Baghdad released figures suggesting the surge of American forces has rapidly reduced violence. Klobuchar said that's not clear. 'Some of the violence has been pushed out to other areas, but I think it's too early to tell,' she said. 'It'll be best evaluated in the middle or late summer.'
Here's what she got wrong:
The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force-Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
When it comes to national security, Sen. Klobuchar is either poorly informed or totally disinterested. That's disturbing. Regardless of whether you agreed with the Iraq war or not, it's a senator's job to get the facts right.
These weren't classified items that required a security clearance. These were statistics included in Centcom's monthly reports.
If Sen. Klobuchar wouldn't have spent her time finding and attending photo ops in Minnesota, she could've spnt the time studying Centcom's reports. That would've helped her be informed on this important subject.
It's disgraceful that a US senator could get that information that badly wrong, especially when the information was so readily available.
Posted Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Oct-11 08:34 AM
Are the US forces simply hunkering in the bunker?
You avoid roadside improvised bombs by staying off the roads. I think you are jumping to conclusions.
What is assured is that troop deaths in Iraq will decline substantially, once troops are removed from Iraq.
Beyond that, it's a reach to say what's a significant statistic, indicative of what. All pure guesswork.
