• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

Let’s finish the job.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Plame, Step 4

Plame, Step 4

by John Cole|  July 12, 20055:43 pm| 65 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Ok, We generally seem to have agreement about the following statements:

1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.

2.) Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame and former ambassador to Iraq, was sent by the CIA to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in/trying to buy uranium (ignore precisely what he was doing in Niger for now- we can get to that later).

3.) Valerie Plame recommended her husband to CIA authorities for the job, as he had extensive contacts in Africa from his numerous years of previous service.

Time to step boldly forward:

4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.

Again, answer only “Yes,” if you agree, “No” and then why if you disagree.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Plame, Step 2.
Next Post: Plame Step 5 »

Reader Interactions

65Comments

  1. 1.

    JP

    July 12, 2005 at 5:47 pm

    Yes

  2. 2.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 12, 2005 at 5:51 pm

    Yes, but with a cavil. It’s possible in a case like this that Wilson had a literary agent who both suggested the column and sold it.

  3. 3.

    waddayaknow

    July 12, 2005 at 5:51 pm

    Yes.

  4. 4.

    Stormy70

    July 12, 2005 at 5:52 pm

    Yes.

  5. 5.

    Demdude

    July 12, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    Yes.

  6. 6.

    jim rhoads (vnjagvet)

    July 12, 2005 at 5:57 pm

    Yes, but we are losing some of out audience.

  7. 7.

    Marcus Wellby

    July 12, 2005 at 6:01 pm

    Yes – with the exception of the “at the behest of the NYT’s”. You will recall that not too long ago the Times wrote an editorial apologizing for its botched handling of the WMD issue. If anything, at the time of Wilson’s editorial, the Times was very sure of the existence of WMD’s. I don’t know why they would urge Wilson forward if their own reporters, including shining star Miller, were reporting the very opposite of what Wilson was saying.

    Now, as far as Andrew J. Lazarus’ comment above, I wouldn’t bet money against a literary agent.

  8. 8.

    over it

    July 12, 2005 at 6:03 pm

    Yes.

    And yes to #2 & #3….I was afk.

  9. 9.

    Tim F

    July 12, 2005 at 6:04 pm

    well duh.

    Rhoads is right, let’s get back to punching eack other.

    Kidding. This is smart and probably unique insofar as the blogosphere is concerned. One could ask whether anything Wilson wrote has any bearing on Plame’s status as a covert op.

  10. 10.

    Steve

    July 12, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    Yes.

  11. 11.

    SamAm

    July 12, 2005 at 6:08 pm

    Yes.

  12. 12.

    SoCalJustice

    July 12, 2005 at 6:10 pm

    Si, Da, Oui, Yes.

  13. 13.

    Christie S.

    July 12, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    Yep.

  14. 14.

    AJStrata

    July 12, 2005 at 6:13 pm

    No.

    Wilson and Plame had planned this as the last stage to undermine Bush. It was Wilson and Plame which drove the media blitz

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/291

  15. 15.

    John Cole

    July 12, 2005 at 6:19 pm

    If you are saying Wilson planned a media blitz, I am at a loss to how you disagree with the statement, AJ. And please embed your links.

  16. 16.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 12, 2005 at 6:22 pm

    Yes, though I second Marcus’ comments:

    “Yes – with the exception of the “at the behest of the NYT’s”. You will recall that not too long ago the Times wrote an editorial apologizing for its botched handling of the WMD issue. If anything, at the time of Wilson’s editorial, the Times was very sure of the existence of WMD’s.”

    Well said Marcus.

  17. 17.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 6:22 pm

    damn good link AJStrata.. and knowing what a dishonest lying POS Joseph Wilson has been proven to be, and what a hack his wife appears to be, she prejudged Saddam’s reported attempts at purchasing uranium as nothing but a “crazy report”, I think you have a solid theory

    I stand by my prediction that an investigation is underway concerning a rogue CIA agent who conspired with her husband to foster erroneous intelligence on Saddam

  18. 18.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 6:24 pm

    oh, sorry.. forgot to add yes/yes

  19. 19.

    Vladi G

    July 12, 2005 at 6:25 pm

    Hilarious. When Darrell isn’t quoting Powerline and Captain’s Quarters, he turns to good ‘ol Steno Sue.

  20. 20.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 6:27 pm

    Hilarious. When Darrell isn’t quoting Powerline and Captain’s Quarters, he turns to good ‘ol Steno Sue

    More penetrating insightful commentary from the deep thinkers

  21. 21.

    Mr.Ortiz

    July 12, 2005 at 6:29 pm

    Wow, John, you’re getting almost as much mileage out of this as from the Schiavo case. Keep it up!

    For the record, yes to all of the above.

  22. 22.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 12, 2005 at 6:34 pm

    “I stand by my prediction that an investigation is underway concerning a rogue CIA agent who conspired with her husband to foster erroneous intelligence on Saddam

  23. 23.

    Nikki

    July 12, 2005 at 6:37 pm

    I’m saying yes to all of the above as well.

    I also don’t believe that AJStrata’s link can be considered “reputable” (since it is to his own blog) know matter how heartily Darrell endorses it.

  24. 24.

    John Cole

    July 12, 2005 at 6:38 pm

    For the love of everything holy, folks- what is so damned confusing about ‘Yes” Or “No” answers?

  25. 25.

    Monty Burns

    July 12, 2005 at 6:38 pm

    Yes ….excellent.

  26. 26.

    ppgaz

    July 12, 2005 at 6:39 pm

    When is the potluck?

  27. 27.

    michael shew

    July 12, 2005 at 6:40 pm

    yes

  28. 28.

    eileen from OH

    July 12, 2005 at 6:42 pm

    Yes, with a caveat re: #4. Up until the SOTU, Wilson was an anonymous source to someone at the NYTimes (Kristoff?)regarding Saddam seeking uranium in Africa. It was only AFTER the SOTU and the infamous 16 words that Wilson wrote the story and outted himself as the anonymous source. Also, in that piece, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa” he included a disclaimer. Basically, he said that “IF what the President is referring to is Niger, he’s wrong and here’s why.” And, of course, after that the WH backed off the claim.

    So it’s not like Wilson came home and wrote an article. It wasn’t until the bogus info showed up in the SOTU that he went public and wrote the article.

    John – sorry I didn’t do just a Yes, but I’ve been gone all day and didn’t get to jump in on the other threads.

    Interesting exercise.

    eileen from OH

  29. 29.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 6:44 pm

    Calling that speculation is putting it lightly about AJ’s theory. I would prefer using one of your favorite terms. It is a “moonbat” theory

    Uh Wilson has in fact been proven by a bipartisan Senate committee to be a lying fraud. Nepotism aside, he and his wife conspired to get his little Niger trip, this is established fact. They are not honorable people. As the WP article maked clear, Plame had prejudged the uranium sales story before she even sent Wilson.. prejudged it as “this crazy report.”

    Having prejudged Saddam’s attempt to buy uranium, and having pulled strings to get her husband on the trip, it makes entirely perfect sense that she got him that gig so that he could smear/sabotage the administration. No ‘moonbat theories’.. it makes perfect sense

  30. 30.

    Trevor

    July 12, 2005 at 6:45 pm

    Yes

  31. 31.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 12, 2005 at 6:47 pm

    Yes.

  32. 32.

    MikeAdamson

    July 12, 2005 at 6:57 pm

    yes

  33. 33.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 12, 2005 at 7:02 pm

    You can find the Senate Committee’s report here. Warning: large PDF. What a surprise, it doesn’t support Darrell’s conclusions (nor Steno Sue’s) at all. It does show some confllicts in Wilson’s testimony where his memory is probably not correct—the same sort of discrepancy as tripped up murderer Michael Schiavo when he couldn’t keep his 911 calls straight!

    On the other hand, the report does make clear the insistence on the part of DIA and the White House to believe the forgeries that claimed Iraq was buying yellowcake. Funny how little interest Darrell has in finding out who lied to dupe our intelligence agencies, isn;t it? And, of course, we know that the yellowcake sales, amounting to 1/6 of annual production, could not have been hidden and did not take place. given that there was no Iraqi nuclear program to use the stuff, all that’s really left to Darrell is to confuse the issue.

    More on the partisan (not bipartisan) attempt to slime Wilson at Wiki.

  34. 34.

    synuclein

    July 12, 2005 at 7:06 pm

    Yes

  35. 35.

    John Bolton

    July 12, 2005 at 7:12 pm

    No.

    Why I disagree: I’m nuttier than a goddamn fruitcake.

  36. 36.

    Harley

    July 12, 2005 at 7:19 pm

    Yes

  37. 37.

    Kimmitt

    July 12, 2005 at 7:20 pm

    Yes.

  38. 38.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 7:23 pm

    I don’t find Mr. Lazarus to be a particularly honest fellow. If he has specific points of disagreement, please cite SPECIFICALLY what they are without burying any verification by posting a 500+ page pdf file and essentially saying ‘read it yourself’.

    From the bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee investigation:

    The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

    and this:

    And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address

    and as for Lazarus’ suggestion that Wilson was merely have some Michael Schiavo-like problems with minor discrepancies:

    “Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters.

    Ah yes, Wilson having claimed to know information about CIA documents for which he never had (unless his wife illegally gave them to him) access to

    And when the Senate Committee asked Wilson how he could have come to such grandiose conclusions without any information:

    On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.”

    “literary flair”? literary flair = slanderous lies. If leftists were honest, they would be up in arms about this.. but they’re not, are they? What does that say about them

  39. 39.

    Mike

    July 12, 2005 at 7:25 pm

    Yes

  40. 40.

    Al Maviva

    July 12, 2005 at 7:33 pm

    Yes with caveat.

    “Sent by the CIA” implies official sanction. Based on the Rove/Cooper email, it appears that the mission may have originated in Ms. Plame’s section, without higher headquarters sanction. This is unusual because such a high level and politically sensitive mission would ordinarily be a “call home” issue in most agencies, requiring express permission or at least monitoring by somebody at the D.O. or D.C.I. level. Sensitive missions usually follow a 1-2-3 rule – 1 level higher than the first line supervisor (in the chain of command) closely controls the mission, 2 levels higher is informed of all activity; 3 levels higher is apprised of all significant information. That is pretty typical in most government agencies, except where there are stovepipes; either way it means the agency head or relevant WH staffer (NSC staff in this case, or Cheney) would have been briefed.

    I would agree to “sent on a trip authorized at some level by the CIA.

  41. 41.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 12, 2005 at 7:37 pm

    Nepotism aside, he and his wife conspired to get his little Niger trip, this is established fact.

    I presume you have evidence of this conspiracy?

    As the WP article maked clear, Plame had prejudged the uranium sales story before she even sent Wilson.. prejudged it as “this crazy report.”

    Well the bipartisan panel hasn’t ruled out that is was a “crazy report”. Besides, isn’t she entitled to her own opinion? This is America, afterall…

    Yesterday’s report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched “yellowcake” uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

    Wilson’s reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

  42. 42.

    Don

    July 12, 2005 at 7:37 pm

    Yes, but what aspect of this could be up for debate? Isn’t the printing and quoting of the Wilson article a matter of historical record?

  43. 43.

    Emperor Larry Bernard

    July 12, 2005 at 7:38 pm

    If we include the caveat “sent on a trip authorized at some level by the CIA.” then I can say (fundementally) Yes

    #1) Yes she was in DC and yes she WAS a covert agent ( but was not at the time of the so called outing)
    #2)YES… now how he investigated… that is something subject for debate but he did go over and ask his buddies over there what was what
    #3) -with the mentioned edit- yes
    #4) Yes: though his motives here are questionable

  44. 44.

    Emperor Larry Bernard

    July 12, 2005 at 7:39 pm

    If we include the caveat “sent on a trip authorized at some level by the CIA.” then I can say (fundementally) Yes

    #1) Yes she was in DC and yes she WAS a covert agent ( but was not at the time of the so called outing)
    #2)YES… now how he investigated… that is something subject for debate but he did go over and ask his buddies over there what was what
    #3) -with the mentioned edit- yes
    #4) Yes: though his motives here are questionable

  45. 45.

    Mike

    July 12, 2005 at 7:39 pm

    Darrell,

    The part of the Senate report you seem to like so much was NOT the “bipartisan” ENDORSED report. It was an add-on put there by the Rethuglican leadership after the fact.

    John, Darrell continues to insult us at every turn. You warned us all not to continue the insults. Please address this.

  46. 46.

    Fledermaus

    July 12, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    rogue CIA agent who conspired with her husband to foster erroneous intelligence on Saddam

  47. 47.

    p.lukasiak

    July 12, 2005 at 7:41 pm

    Highly conditional “yes”.

    the statement says “wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration”….

    Wilson’s piece was not “highly critical of…many claims made by the Bush administration.” It focussed on the single “niger/uranium” claim.

    Indeed, if you actually read the piece, its not really “highly critical” as much as “highly questioning” of the Bush administration’s handling of intelligence — with the specific claim that Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

  48. 48.

    Jess

    July 12, 2005 at 7:45 pm

    Yes.

    And regarding the honor or lack thereof of Wilson and Plame, what does that have to do with Rove’s outrageous behavior? Wilson and Plame did not break the law, however much you might disagree with their actions; the question is to what degree Rove fucked up in his desire to silence all dissent, and to what degree the White House backed him in this.

  49. 49.

    BumperStickerist

    July 12, 2005 at 7:45 pm

    Yes – minor quibbles with some phraseology.

    But I’m getting the feeling that I’m about to be asked to invest in a multi-level marketing opportunity that’s not a pyramid scam called ‘Amway’.

  50. 50.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 7:47 pm

    John, Darrell continues to insult us at every turn.

    Translation: “mommy, I just pooped my pants..Do something!”

    god you are a pathetic little whiner. How do you live with yourself?

    Oh, and which parts of “the Senate report you seem to like” was not bi-partisan endorsed? I linked to a Washington Post news story and cited direct quotes from it. Are their facts being disputed? Where, specifically?

  51. 51.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 12, 2005 at 7:47 pm

    Let’s see, you can follow my link and read the Senate report itself, or you can follow Darrell’s link and get an inaccurate, biased summary that, as we have explained several times, conflated the bipartisan report with a partisan addendum that was generally rejected. Poor Darrell, those official gOP talking points must be getting harder and harder to type without falling over laughing.

  52. 52.

    Bob

    July 12, 2005 at 7:49 pm

    Yes.

    Can we vote on Darrell next?

  53. 53.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 7:52 pm

    Yes.

    Can we vote on Darrell next?

    Such substantive insights coming from you leftie kooks. I’m feelin’ the love

  54. 54.

    Mike

    July 12, 2005 at 8:01 pm

    Darrell,

    I have been called worse by far better than you.

    Yes, there was a very partisan add-on to the bipartisan report. It was added by Pat Roberts after the fact and was not accepted by the democrats on the committee. That is where the quotes you pulled from the WaPo article came from. But of course, you have already read the report and know that, right?

  55. 55.

    Darrell

    July 12, 2005 at 8:12 pm

    Yes, there was a very partisan add-on to the bipartisan report. It was added by Pat Roberts after the fact and was not accepted by the democrats on the committee. That is where the quotes you pulled from the WaPo article came from.

    Which points are you disputing? Did Wilson not explain his lying inconsistencies by saying it was all “literary flair”? Which parts of the Washinton Post news story are you claiming to be erroneous?

    And just because a Republican makes a statement, backed by facts, does not necessarily make it less factual

  56. 56.

    ppgaz

    July 12, 2005 at 8:19 pm

    Well, there ya go. It’s a Darrell thread now.

    Party’s over. Please check above and below your seat for personal belongings.

  57. 57.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 12, 2005 at 8:24 pm

    Darrell, an even better version of the Committee Report is here, where it is text PDF (hence searchable) and not a graphic. So I typed in your alleged direct quote “admitted that he had no direct knowledge”, and the only match is on page 455 (physical pages as numbered in PDF). The following paragraph is (my emphasis)

    The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate,
    unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.

    Now, is there any doubt in your mind that your quote does not represent a finding of the bipartisan commission? Four pages earlier, the section in which this quote is found is labeled Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, that is, a minority even of the Republicans on the committee.

    So I think we are on notice: you can no longer pretend to be an innocent dupe when coppying the GOP Talking points that Wilson was found to be a liar by a bipartisan committee. From now on if you choose to make such statements, we know you are a goddam liar. Clear enough?

  58. 58.

    Mr Furious

    July 12, 2005 at 10:34 pm

    Nicely done up top Lazarus, and down here. You are doing yeoman’s work fighting off Darrell and his bullshit.

    4. Yes. And I believe it was on his own (or with an agent) not from the NYT.

  59. 59.

    arkabee

    July 12, 2005 at 11:24 pm

    yes

  60. 60.

    arkabee

    July 12, 2005 at 11:28 pm

    yes

  61. 61.

    arkabee

    July 12, 2005 at 11:31 pm

    yes

  62. 62.

    Defense Guy

    July 13, 2005 at 8:59 am

    Yes.

    Late returning to the party. The statement, as written seems accurate.

  63. 63.

    Jackmormon

    July 13, 2005 at 6:40 pm

    Yes.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Glittering Eye says:
    July 13, 2005 at 8:55 am

    Catching my eye: morning A through Z

    Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: John Cole of Balloon Juice, one of the most reasonable guys in the blogosphere, is meticulously building a consensus of opinion on the Wilson/Plame/Novak/Rove matter. Step 2, Step 3, Step 4. I’ll be…

  2. Obsidian Wings says:
    July 13, 2005 at 11:35 am

    The Oliver North Effect.

    I don’t know whether Rove committed a crime in l’affair Plame. (In fact, I rather suspect that he didn’t.) But this defense of Rove in The Wall Street Journal is ridiculous:Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Frankensteinbeck on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:35am)
  • Baud on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:34am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:34am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:31am)
  • Betty on War for Ukraine Day 394: Bakhmut Still Holds! (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:29am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!