Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No grand plan for Iran

By Tom Toles




By Tom Toles  | April 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign Policy, International  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's auto sale success
Next: 'In taxpayers we trust'

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:


Once again I do not understand what Toles is saying. But that's just me...I'm a tea party guy and you know how stupid we are. Like dre7861, the sketch is funnier than the cartoon, I guess, if I understood it.taxcutsin12, though, who thinks unconstitutionals (sic) don't dance really confuses's a non sequitur for one who takes the name implying he is for change in 2012 but thinks it's unconstitutional to own a gun. I've been told before to butt out of DC politics since I don't live there. However, if those of us, "the great unwashed," who live outside the beltway, don't keep an eye on what you all are doing we run the risk of letting you set the pace and we deserve what we get.

Posted by: quiensabe | April 25, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

On Iran,

When Eisenhower authorized the CIA to overthrow Iran's legal government to secure oil and install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power the U.S. entered uncharted waters.
The U.S. compounded it's mistake "in 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).
The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied, 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which became operational in 1967 and was fueled by highly enriched uranium."
""President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'." At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Then-United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled in 2005, "I don't think the issue of proliferation came up."[39] However, a 1974 CIA proliferation assessment stated "If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."

The Shah also signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Africa under which Iranian oil money financed the development of South African fuel enrichment technology using a novel "jet nozzle" process, in return for assured supplies of South African (and Namibian) enriched uranium."

And now the neo-cons responsible for Iran having nuclear material want to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Posted by: The-Historian | April 25, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Tom - this is one of those days when you're sketch was funnier than the official cartoon. You summed up the DC voter representation issue v. the out of control gun lobby perfectly. I waiting for the day when the NRA tries to force a law that every one MUST own a gun ["Hey if they can do it for health insurance why not for guns" would be their line of thinking]. When are Americans going to wake up and realize that reason that big associations like the NRA exisits is because someone is making money - in the NRA's case gun manufacturers. And these gun manufacturers don't give a rat's rear end about your constitutional rights or how many victims of gun violence; they only care about their profit margin. Isn't it time that the average American stop shilling for big corporations?

Posted by: dre7861 | April 24, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

BradG: An economy that depends 70% on CONSUMING instead of PRODUCING is an economy headed for death. It isn't a sustainable economic model. It depends on the productiveness of others, and only if the others are willing to sell us the fruit of their production.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 24, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Unconstitutionals don't dance.

Posted by: taxcutsin12 | April 23, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I would think it is time to review the situation. Iran says hey do not want to have nuclear weapons. This must be the fantasy of a deranged USA interrogator. But why?

What can it mean?

Posted by: GaryEMasters | April 23, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Spending on wages isn't considered part of the economy as that would be double counting. So your point is somewhat flawed.

I assume by Economy you mean GDP. The GDP is composed of Consumer Spending + Gross Investment + Government Spending + (Exports-Imports).

Consumer spending is almost always the largest part of the economy so 70% isn't all that terribly high. It was higher than that in the late 20's and early 30's but dropped to ~50% during WWII due to rationing and less consumer products available. It has risen since but taken a slight downturn on the last year.

70% is a little on the high side but not something to be all that concerned about if you actually understand how the economy is measured.

Posted by: BradG | April 23, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company