Wikileaks will begin releasing emails referring to Obama,Biden,Romney & their parties

[Are_grits_groceries]

Today, Wednesday 8th October, WikiLeaks begins releasing over 200,000 Global Intelligence Files (GI Files) relating to the U.S. presidential elections. Each week day we will release thousands of emails referring to Obama, Biden, Romney and the Republican and Democratic parties. Today we will publish over 8,238 emails referring to republican(s), Romney, RNC and/or GOP, ranging from 17th September 2011 to 19th December 2011.

The GI Files total over five million emails from the U.S. private intelligence firm Stratfor. Stratfor is a secretive multi-national private intelligence firm, providing services to large corporations, and government agencies. Despite providing the U.S. government with "global intelligence" services there is no public oversite of Stratfor. The emails highlight Stratfor staff’s revolving door with government offices; Stratfor’s Vice-President for Intelligence, Fred Burton, was formerly a special agent with the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service and was their Deputy Chief of the counterterrorism division. Although Stratfor boasts U.S. governmental sources and reports to have a lot of influence on western decision makers, their emails reveal poor working and security methods and show strong political bias within the organization.

This close connection to the U.S. government means that these GI Files releases will shed insight into key U.S. federal election players. The only legitimate government is one that is elected by an informed population. Through this release WikiLeaks aims to inform the U.S. electorate in an unbiased way through the release of source documents from one of the most oddly influential companies in the U.S. today. We call upon all people around the world to search the emails and publicise their findings using the hashtag #wlfindGI.

Whoever you elect into power, keep them accountable by supporting WikiLeaks - vote with your wallet, vote WikiLeaks.
http://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-GI-Files-Presidential.html

Boom may go the dynamite!

[jberryhill]

1. "in an unbiased way through the release of source documents"

But rather than releasing all of them, they are doing it in selective batches.

Give me a big pile of emails, and let me control which ones are seen, and I'll show you bias.

[Luminous Animal]

19. And I am sure you'd be willing to scour through all 5 million emails to find

relevant topics and info.

[jberryhill]

20. A magic trick depends on controlling what is seen, and what is not

[Luminous Animal]

25. Journalism requires researching the material and presenting it in a coherent manner.

[DisgustedTX]

37. Tell the Rove indictors

They like 'odds'.

[nc4bo]

2. SURPRISE!

Because I have no flecking idea what is in these things!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. EEK!! Informing the electorate about their government is dangersous!

They might find out what it's doing and vote accordingly!!

[nc4bo]

4. !

Is Big Bird on a ballot because at least we know what's up with BB.

and I damn sure hope the D's aren't up to their necks in any bs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. The email about the feather implants could prove a game changer.

[nc4bo]

11. LOL nm

[nc4bo]

15. Well right now there is a big giant bodacious donation ad on the page sooo........

oh lawd - check it out. It isn't much different than what we talk about here on DU.

[woo me with science]

46. +10000

[Zalatix]

50. The DRONES!!! Send in the DRONES!!!

[mzmolly]

52. What is voting "accordingly"

in your mind?

"If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side." ~ DU TOS Agreement

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Voting accordingly has to do with an informed electorate voting on the basis of what they know.

Isn't that how you vote? And, wouldn't what you know influence the way you vote? Do you prefer not knowing what your government and politicians do, endorse, or push for?

[mzmolly]

58. And your idea of an informed electorate would result in voting

for whom?

You are 'informed' that this is a close race, and a so called progressive vote for anyone other than Obama is a vote for Romney, correct?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. For whomever they think the best candidate based on what they know.

Which is exactly what I intend to do.

But, worry not, I live in a very Blue State and my single vote will not decide the outcome of the election.

Will yours?

[mzmolly]

71. I live in a pretty blue state.

Not as blue as yours, however.

~ Peace.

[sadbear]

5. Today is Wednesday 10th October...

for what it's worth.

[Hatchling]

62. Do you meas as in "October Surprise?"

Crossed my mnd when I read this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. FYI Stratford leans right

[sabrina 1]

55. Yes, Stratfor leans very right. And since Wikileaks claims there is 'bias' in the emails, I assume

from all I've seen of Stratfor's emails so far and from what I've read about them, we could assume they mean 'towards the Right'.

All these defense and other type 'think tanks' who have been exposed through hacking have definitely been exposed as Right Leaning, attacking mostly the Left in their 'private' correspondence.

[ronnie624]

78. Burton is buds with Rick Perry, and has advised him on 'border security'.

He's also fond of using racist epithets, despises Obama and claims "black Dems" committed fraud in the Ohio and Pennsylvania elections. Reading his e-mails leaves little doubt about what sort of 'company' this is. I also think the purpose of this outfit, is much more sinister than just making money through its involvement in the corruption of our government.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. It never gets boring around here.

[mzmolly]

9. This kind of information can only hurt the incumbent President. Thanks Assange!

F Wikileaks.

[msongs]

14. yeah let's not let any truth thru the wall of policiticians' self serving BS nt

[Glitterati]

16. Sorry, can't blame him

That government wants to lock Assange up for the rest of his life.

Sometimes, when you light a fire, you're the one that gets burned.

[mzmolly]

18. The truth according to a right wing Republican?

Yeah, let's release this shit three weeks before the election.

[snooper2]

35. I say truthy to power now!

they have anything besides 911 numbers game?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Why would that be?

If the information is harmful to the prez why would it exist in the first place?

[mzmolly]

21. Because it can't harm Romney,

can it?

There is no upside to this for Democrats. PERIOD.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Does Wickilieaks owe allegiance to either party?

They're watchdogs and whistleblowers, not party operatives. And, if Democratic functionaries or politicians are playing by the rules and not complete asses there should be nothing there to fret about.

[mzmolly]

23. Do I owe allegiance to Wikileaks or Assange?

No. I owe it to my fellow Americans. I want Obama to win. Further, this board has an allegiance to Democrats.

Hopefully Assange's narcissism tour will end soon and the media will lose interest.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Allegiance? "Generally support" is allegiance?

I think not. Being an adult I think that I am capable of making up my own mind about policies, issues, candidates without instructions from the party.

You?

[mzmolly]

30. WTF does that mean?

Are you capable of making up your own mind on Assange? ... I am here because my mind is made up. I am a Democrat - for good reason.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. So being a Democrat influences your thinking on Assange?

I've been a Democrat since 1965 but I owe the party no "allegiance". I'm not an automaton who votes for whomever shows up on the ballot with a (D) after his/her name or supports policies simply because the party is in charge of them.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

[mzmolly]

32. No. I am certain I would have the same

opinion on the accused rapist, regardless of political affiliation. Further, I'm not a Democrat because I 'owe' the party a damn thing. The Democratic Party is not "in charge of" me. I'm a Democrat because I support Democratic policy. I support the Democratic Party Platform.

Here's a more recent quote for you. "The differences make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans." ~ Paul Wellstone - (Articulating the importance of distinguishing between Democrats and Republicans.)

I vote, not only for myself, but for other "ordinary Americans."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Democratic policy was to wage wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Did you support those policies and vote for Democrats that did?

They made quite a difference in the lives of "ordinary Americans".

[mzmolly]

34. Not only do you need a history lesson -

you need to find a board that supports your political opposition to Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. I didn't expect an answer to that question.

Are you saying that Democrats didn't support the war in Vietnam?

[mzmolly]

39. Are you suggesting our intervention into Vietnam, started in the 60's?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=18&smtid=1

Or, that Wellstone was wrong when he said "the differences make a difference...?" More importantly, are you suggesting that Democrats = Republicans with your Vietnam absurdity?

My dad is an "ordinary American" who fought in Vietnam. He is much better off under a President Obama than he was under Bush.

Perhaps most importantly, are you voting for President Obama? Or, do you believe that he and Romney are essentially the same on foreign and domestic policy?

.. On edit, to answer your question -

"Did you support those policies and vote for Democrats that did?"

I wasn't born when we went into Vietnam. Though, I am opposed to war(s) in general.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. No, I'm not saying that it started in the '60s.

As far as Vietnam and Republicans = Democrats during that war being the same. Yes, I am saying that their policies were the same.

I do not believe that Romney is "the same" on foreign and domestic policy and I certainly won't be voting for Romney.

I am voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

Though, I am opposed to war(s) in general.

Did you support Obama's escalation of the war Afghanistan?

[ohheckyeah]

42. "I am voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. "

And who do you consider that to be?

[mzmolly]

51. Exactly. I don't come here to be shat upon

by those who are to the so called 'left' or 'right' of Democrats. Do you?

I'll post at Free Republic if I want to hear how 'flawed' Obama/Gore/Democrats are.

[ohheckyeah]

54. Nope and that

answer was very evasive, IMO.

[mzmolly]

59. And that evasiveness has been here for

nearly 36K posts. I don't expect a direct answer to our questions.

[mzmolly]

47. "I am voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot."

Which is whom, in your opinion? And, how can one be 'anti-war' without a chance in hell of making any related decisions?

I don't support war, period. But I am understanding of any measure that gets us out of the area sooner, and with less loss of life.

Did you learn anything from the false comparisons between Gore and Bush?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. I learned that a lot of people bleme the left for Gore's inability to get enough votes.

[mzmolly]

67. I've learned that many on the so called "left" are hypocritical

trolls.

You didn't answer my question. Why? Again, who are you voting for? It's an easy answer for 'informed' people like yourself. I am voting for Obama. See how easy that was?!

Do you think Gore was the same as Bush on foreign and domestic policy? Would we be dealing with two wars, citizens united etc. had he been elected? And, don't you think a truly informed electorate would have chosen Gore over Bush?

[snot]

76. Tierra, I have a feeling your time is being wasted.

I too want the truth about those I'm electing; and anyone who says I'm better off without it, ain't on my team.

[progressoid]

10. Well, this could be interesting.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. I, for one, am waiting -

with bated breath. Let the sunshine in!

[HappyMe]

13. Meh.

"...vote with your wallet, vote Wikileaks." Okay then.

[Barack_America]

24. Not impressed. I've got thousands of emails from the Obama campaign...

...in my inbox.

[hrmjustin]

26. Lol me too

[leftynyc]

27. Attention whores/pimps

Nothing but attention whores/pimps. Vote with your wallets, vote wikileaks - is that an attempt at extortion?

[faith woos science]

28. Looks like someone is trying to make some cash.

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releases.html

Go try to read any of the e-mails and a non closeable donation page covers the page below it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. The donation page has been removed according to reports on the web.

It was met with instant upset by Anonymous members.

[struggle4progress]

36. Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously

The corporate research firm has branded itself as a CIA-like "global intelligence" firm, but only Julian Assange and some over-paying clients are fooled.
Feb 27 2012, 4:18 PM ET

... According to Anya Alfano's email, Stratfor's target was PETA, the animal rights group, and its client Coca-Cola. Their top secret mission was to find out "How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?" and other tantalizing global secrets that could only be secured through such top-secret means as calling PETA's press office or Googling it. Alfano concluded her chilling email, "I need all the information our talented interns can dig up by COB tomorrow."

Shortly before the release, Wikileaks told the world to prepare for "extraordinary news." In announcing today's release, Wikileaks describes Stratfor as "a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations." The group's announcement says that the released emails "show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods" and calls the company "a money-making scheme of questionable legality." It adds, "The material shows how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients."

Maybe what these emails actually reveal is how a Texas-based corporate research firm can get a little carried away in marketing itself as a for-hire CIA and end up fooling some over-eager hackers into believing it's true.

The group's reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight. As a former recipient of their "INTEL REPORTS" (I assume someone at Stratfor signed me up for a trial subscription, which appeared in my inbox unsolicited), what I found was typically some combination of publicly available information and bland "analysis" that had already appeared in the previous day's New York Times. A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/

[ronnie624]

43. Can you explain why I should take the author seriously?

In your own words, I mean. What am I supposed to get from that article? I see some sarcasm and ridicule, but that's about it.

The US government clearly does not consider any of this to be a joke.

[struggle4progress]

44. Confessions of a Stratfor subscriber

By ABC's Mark Corcoran
Updated Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:54pm AEDT

... I was among the reportedly 300 Australian subscribers whose personal details and credit card information were posted online in late December by the group Anonymous after activists hacked into the Stratfor database ...

Unfortunately after all this time as a low-level subscriber, Stratfor has never given me the inside running on a story. Not even once.

Nor, during my years travelling for Foreign Correspondent, have I ever seen evidence that Stratfor's big corporate clients, who pay many thousands of dollars for their subscriptions, received insights they couldn't have gleaned if they were avid readers of Britain's Economist, the august US journal Foreign Affairs, or the excellent Australian foreign policy blog, The Interpreter.

Stratfor's real talent lies in marketing to corporate America ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-29/corcoran-confessions-of-a-stratfor-subscriber/3859418

[ronnie624]

45. I didn't think so.

The Sydney Peace Foundation awarded Assange a gold medal for "exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights". In contrast, the US government targeted him, possibly under the Espionage Act. Rupert Murdoch is hailed as a pioneering newsman, while a pundit on Murdoch-owned cable-television outlets has openly called for Assange's murder.

The Stratfor emails will be released over time, along with context provided by WikiLeaks' media partners. Already revealed by the documents are the close, and potentially illegal, connections between Stratfor employees and government-intelligence and law-enforcement officials. Rolling Stone magazine reports that the US Department of Homeland Security was monitoring Occupy Wall Street protests nationally, and the Texas Department of Public Safety has an undercover agent at Occupy Austin who was disclosing information to contacts at Stratfor.

Stratfor also is hired by multinational corporations to glean "intelligence" about critics. Among companies using Stratfor were Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Coca-Cola.

Fred Burton, Stratfor's vice-president of intelligence, and a former head of counterintelligence at the US State Department's diplomatic corps, wrote in an email, "Not for Pub – We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect." Burton and others at Stratfor showed intense interest in WikiLeaks starting in 2010, showing intense dislike for Assange personally. Burton allegedly wrote: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever." According to another leaked email, a Stratfor employee wanted Assange waterboarded. In a statement, Stratfor would neither confirm nor deny the provenance of the leaked material.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/01/stratfor-wikileaks-obama-administration

[struggle4progress]

48. ... Stratfor has been accused of overselling itself as a “quasi-CIA”. But as the leaked document

shows, gullible customers (and Wikileaks) have only themselves to blame for falling for it.
Jargon: A reliable source on the ground
Mar 5th 2012, 19:16 by L.M.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/03/jargon

There's no shortage of people who have a low opinion of Stratfor

[ronnie624]

53. Fred Burton

Fred Burton is Stratfor's vice president for intelligence,[1][2] and is considered "one of the world's foremost experts on security, terrorists and terrorist organizations."[3][4]

Burton was a special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service.

Burton was also appointed by Washington to assist in the investigation of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He is the former deputy chief of the counterterrorism division of the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service. Mr. Burton also investigated the killing of Rabbi Meir Kahane; the al Qaeda New York City bombing plots before the September 11 attacks; and the Libyan-backed terrorist attacks against diplomats in Sana'a and Khartoum. He was involved in the arrest of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Burton

This is a very well connected individual. He is not a joke.

The problem with the articles you post, is that they are written by obscure journalists, who are attempting to plant impressions in peoples' minds, through vitriol, sarcasm and ridicule, a well established propaganda technique. They aren't discussing the content of the hacked e-mails. They seem to want to divert attention from this area.

I have a low opinion of Stratfor, too. It's a 'company' run by wingnuts, working with other wingnuts within our government, to oppress and further advance self-serving US duplicity and aggression in the world.

[struggle4progress]

57. "VP for Intelligence" is may be a "rain-maker" slot: it's common for well-connected folk to use

their connections, once in the private sector, to create credibility for companies and to recruit clientele

[ronnie624]

61. So he serves no real purpose in the company?

Do you have a link to info that supports that assertion?

[struggle4progress]

75. That's not what I said. Have a nice day!

[struggle4progress]

49. WikiLeaks publishes Stratfor e-mails. What's in them?

An initial survey of the Stratfor e-mails published so far on the WikiLeaks website reveals not so much a corporate CIA as a geopolitical version of the comedy 'The Office.'
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / February 27, 2012

... an initial survey of the e-mails published so far on WikiLeaks's own website reveals not so much a corporate Central Intelligence Agency as a geopolitical version of the comedy “The Office,” complete with lunch theft, ribald interoffice accusations, jokes about interns, and unsubstantiated blather about world politics.

The e-mails also contain names, contact numbers, and internal passwords of dozens of clients and contacts – just the sort of non-vetted personal information that WikiLeaks has been criticized for publishing in the past ...

Time wasting in the corporate world can take many forms, from unnecessary meetings to office basketball pools. At one point, the Stratfor staff engaged in a hearty round of “Stratfor’s Kremlin Model,” in which they discussed who among them was equivalent to which official in Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin ...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0227/WikiLeaks-publishes-Stratfor-e-mails.-What-s-in-them

[sabrina 1]

63. You are using the same strategy btw, that Stratfor, it was revealed in the released emails, when

trying to decide what to do about Wikileaks, settled on to diminish their importance. They decided to declare them 'irrelevant', not 'important'.

[ronnie624]

69. The public statement included:

"the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either. Nor will we explain the thinking that went into them."

Obviously an attempt to plant doubt and confusion in the minds of the readers.

I think they are authentic, and they will further reveal unflattering facts about our government, which has the propagandists scrambling.

[girl gone mad]

72. What a coincidence.

[sabrina 1]

74. Lol, yes. Those Stratfor emails were quite revealing.

It's jbeen really interesting that the very strategy they discussed and settled on re how to handle Wikileaks, (and we saw it in action, right here in fact many times 'Wikileaks is not important, they have revealed nothing we didn't know already etc etc) even after it was revealed, is exactly what they are doing regarding themselves now.

See the Atlantic article linked above by S4P. Exactly the same strategy. It's actually fun to watch it all play out and the complicity of several different 'media' sources, as they play along. Look eg, at the title of the Atlantic article, meant for maximum 'dismissal':

Stratfor is a Joke and so is Wikileaks for taking it so seriously

The article doesn't even reach the standards of a first grade essay, no facts, no sources, just pure opinion. It reads more like the now jaded internet snark we see so often and generally pay little attention to.

You could skip the article if you like, it's almost predictable as we've seen it so many times now, applied to different subjects depending on how UNIMPORTANT (lol) they really are, it's just standard propaganda so it's kind of redundent now. But DON'T skip the comments! Lol, people aren't buying the propaganda the way they used to.

Stratfor got exposed, so even they have to run for cover themselves or have been told to as seen when they tried to confuse people re the emails.

They just look childish at this point. And so do their surrogates.

We read what we read which they never expected us to see. And no amount of obfuscation can change that.

[sabrina 1]

60. And now for the facts about Stratfor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor

Products

Stratfor has published a daily intelligence briefing since its inception in 1996. Its rise to prominence occurred with the release of its Kosovo Crisis Center during the 1999 NATO airstrikes over Kosovo, which led to publicity in Time magazine, Texas Monthly, and other publications.[3] Before the end of 1999, however, Stratfor had introduced a subscription service through which it offered the majority of its analyses. At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Stratfor made its "breaking news" paragraphs, as well as some notable analyses predicting likely actions to be taken by al-Qaeda and the Bush administration, available freely to the public.

Stratfor has some products available to the public including private briefings, corporate memberships, a publishing business that includes written and multimedia analysis and an iPhone application.[4]

Stratfor has been cited by media such as CNN, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and the BBC as an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues.[5] Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA".6]
[edit]Subscribers

Your attempts to diminish the importance of a Corporation that has been used by the US Government for nearly two decades, are very sweet, I am sure someone somewhere appreciates the effort.

[progressivebydesign]

66. Oh, isn't everyone here on the Assange Canonization Committee still celebrating??

What??? didn't hear you. I'm too busy trying to keep the biggest fucking DISASTER of a republican from winning the election.

[mzmolly]

68. Hear hear!

But of course it will be Obama's fault if he can't rally the purists, who claim to oppose war, but vote for a war with Syria and/or Iran, when they cast a non-Obama vote in the name of perfection next month.

[ronnie624]

70. I want to understand the methods of my government.

An uninformed electorate cannot make informed decisions.

[snot]

77. Hear, hear!

And some can't, or won't (hear).

[NCTraveler]

73. Nice fund raising letter.

"vote with your wallet, vote WikiLeaks"

I will vote with my wallet. Straight to Obamas campaign.

[HappyMe]

79. No kidding.

Wikileaks is the last damn place I would send money.

[SidDithers]

80. And Wikileaks has now put all those documents behind a paywall...

guess the catering costs at the Ecuadoran Embassy are getting too high.

So much for free release of information.

Sid

[gkhouston]

81. Somehow, "Information wants to be available via PayPal" just doesn't have the same ring to it. n/t

[sabrina 1]

82. You mean like other news organizations whose journalists have to eat?

Shame on them for wanting to pay all those people who actually give us real facts. They should have done this long ago.

Thanks for the reminder, time to donate to one of the few actual news organizations where we get facts not propaganda anymore.

[ronnie624]

83. Try this link:

http://wl.wikileaks-press.org/gifiles/releases.html

Now you have no excuses.

[SidDithers]

84. hahah...

They've taken down the paywall.

Clowns.

Edit: Nope. Still there.
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1138211_re-g3-us-israel-no-pm-obama-meeting-scheduled-.html

Sid

[ronnie624]

86. No.

I found an article with an accessible link.

[SidDithers]

87. And I found hundreds behind a paywall...nt

Sid

[ronnie624]

88. I don't understand. n/t

[Comrade_McKenzie]

85. Fuck Wikileaks. Even Anonymous has turned on them and Assange. nt