This shameless, duplicitous Third Way propaganda program is absolutely painful to watch continue.
I want to make something perfectly clear here first. I do have an alternative agenda aside from promoting the idea that Julian Assange should be treated with fairness and in good faith, and my alternative agenda is to expose the Third Way for what it is. I sincerely believe that the Third Way is a threat to democracy everywhere on the planet. I have no other alternative motivations. No one is paying me to do this. There's no material corporate profits to be gained by anyone from my efforts, except perhaps that I am giving Third Way propagandists more work by forcing the talent at the Third Way Think Tank to compose fallacious counter arguments to this exposé, in order to attempt to employ their propaganda effectively.
It is my most sincere intention promote a progressive agenda on all levels, an agenda that will lead to a greater application of democratic principles, equality, and economic justice, compassion, and freedom for people everywhere.
Please consider the accuracy of this quote:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
I'll get right to it:
The Third Way, for all practical purposes the successor to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is a think tank primarily dedicated to influencing and using the Democratic party as a vehicle for aiding in increasing the profits, and increasing control of wealthy private interests over nations and the individuals who comprise the citizenry of these nations. The Third Way disseminates propaganda designed to promote maintaining and furthering the anti-democratic control that these multi-national corporate interests exert over the governments of the sovereign nations of this planet.
This organization and its propagandists will blatantly lie, whenever necessary, in order to further their RW agenda.
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." George W. Bush"
Progressives get how this works. We see it on this issue, and we've seen it over and over on many other issues in the past.
The credibility, now, and in any further discussion, of those who are so desperately and inordinately promoting the idea that Julian Assange must be prosecuted on unsupported allegations, is already less than zero among progressives, and their credibility is rapidly descending proportionately to the increase of propaganda asserting the guilt of Julian Assange increases, due to the non-factual, logically fallacious, and unreasonable prevalence and content of their arguments.
The Third Way is holding Kangaroo Court. The purpose of this Kangaroo Court is to influence public opinion, and help do whatever it takes to try to get Julian Assange discredited, and preferably imprisoned if possible, whether or not he is guilty or innocent of the allegations against him. Guilt or innocence is not their concern. Eliminating him because he has been, and is, a threat to anti-democratic corporate interests is their concern.
You see, the biggest problem for the Third Way here on DU, is that this is primarily a progressive website, and the overwhelming majority of members here are too knowledgable, intelligent, insightful, and perceptive to fall for Third Way type lies and propaganda.
We already know that the Third Way sends out talking point memos to propagandists who are most likely paid to promote the Third Way pro-corporate agenda. There are fanatical volunteers to the Third Way cause as well. We know that these memos instruct propagandists to lie, if necessary, to promote the Third Way pro-corporate agenda of wealthy private interests.
We recognize that there are genuine, well meaning individuals who have sincere concerns that the allegations against Julian Assange have merit. Some of these folks also understand that Julian Assange runs the risk of being falsely charged with very serious crimes by the US the moment he is no longer the protection of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. These folks are not the among the group that comprises Third Way or other coordinated groups of RW propagandists such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The two latter organizations do not pretend to be progressive think tanks. The Third Way, insidously, does pretend to be a progressive organization, and in the insidious nature of this organization lies its inherent danger to democracy everywhere.
While we respect the opinions of the sincere individuals who believe that Julian Assange, we also caution those with sincere motivations to beware of the fallacious arguments put forth by Third Way and other RW propagandists, that are designed to mislead you into supporting the Third Way/RW agenda.
Mr. Assange has stated that he will go to Sweden to face these allegations if Sweden will agree not to extradite him to the US if he goes to Sweden to face these allegations.
Sweden has rejected his good faith offer, and RW propagandists are continually citing phony bureaucratic legal woo as a reason for this rejection of his offer. Therefore, Julian has every reason to believe that, even though he knows, and he has clearly stated, that he is innocent of the allegations he faces in Sweden, and that there is no tangible evidence against him, that these allegations are very possibly only an inter-governmental contrivance through which he will be brought under the jurisdiction of the United States to face potential serious criminal charges.
Here is an exposé of one huge lie that is maliciously and being promoted by Third Way and other RW propagandists:
The falsehood here is clear and straightforward. One of the "myths" Green purported to debunk was that "Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA." Assange's lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be.
But Green claimed that "t would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request." He said that this is so in part because "any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'." He then cited a British lawyer (notably, not a Swedish one) who made the same claim:
"t appears that if the extradition is contested as it would be in Assange's case then it is a matter for the court not the government to decide if he is extradited."
This is completely and unquestionably false. It is simply untrue that it is Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, who are the final decision-makers in extradition requests. It is equally untrue that the Swedish government has no final decision-making power regarding extradition requests that are legally sanctioned by the Swedish judiciary. These are not matters for reasonable debate. The law is clear. Green's claim is false.
To most of us, the desperate, duplicitous arguments being put forth by on this subject have made it clear that there are many who have a disingenuous agenda related to this issue, and will go to any lengths, no matter how ridiculous, to promote this agenda.
We've seen it all before. Protect corporate interests, protect the status quo at all cost.
And this ugly, anti-democratic agenda is showing once again.
This anti-democratic agenda takes precedence over all else; to wit: The anti wikileaks propaganda must continue to be in the forefront no matter how bizarre and unreasonable and fallacious the points being made to promote the propaganda, and the agenda, are.
This agenda is transparent, and I'm quite sure that it is as embarrassing, and very disturbing, to the majority of other genuine progressives as it is to me.
We progressives don't know for absolute fact if Julian Assange is innocent or not.
What the overwhelming majority of progressives do know is that, if we were in his circumstances, and were innocent, we most likely would be taking the same course of action that Julian Assange is taking.
Only a complete naive fool would not.
Undoubtedly, Sweden can find a way to be able to guarantee that Julian will not be extradited to the US, if they feel that pursuing prosecution in a case that has no tangible evidence to support it is so critical.
Until they do, there's is no way that Julian Assange, who knows that he is innocent, and has clearly stated his innocence, can be assured of Sweden's good faith in this matter, and no way.
The Third Way, aka DLC: Supporting wealthy private interests, Wall St. Banksters, and profit over people since 1984.
Memo from Third Way HQ
To: Flying Monkeys
From: Chuckles, the Third Way Woodchuck
YOU IDIOTS ARE EMBARRASSING YOURSELVES.
NOW GET JULIAN ASSANGE EVEN IF
YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO LIE, CHEAT,
AND STEAL IN ORDER TO GET
GET THE JOB DONE!!!
Anonymous hits U.K. government sites over Assange situation
Peace, Equality, Justice, Democracy
= new reply since forum marked as read
The important thing is you've found a new bogeyman. I'm just glad you've found someone.
Edited to add: Oopsie, one of Glenn's appeals to authority didn't pan out.
doesn't mean you gotta get all snippy at me. 
Did Sabrina1 hit a nerve or something?
And mean? You're not being mean, you're just flailing about with impotent anger.
You think way too much of yourself. Now go run along and declare victory or something. Or come back and provide more entertainment.
Just tremendous amount of overlap. 
Automatically you're lumped in with the idiots who say "don't vote for Obama". 
A wolf wants to eat the girl but is afraid to do so in public. He approaches Little Red Riding Hood and she naïvely tells him where she is going. He suggests the girl pick some flowers, which she does. In the meantime, he goes to the grandmother's house and gains entry by pretending to be the girl. He swallows the grandmother whole, (In some stories, he locks her in the closet), and waits for the girl, disguised as the grandma.
When the girl arrives, she notices that her grandmother looks very strange. Little Red Riding Hood then says, "What a deep voice you have,""The better to greet you with," said the wolf."Goodness, what big eyes you have.", said the little girl."The better to see you with.", said the wolf. "And what big hands you have!" exclaimed Little Red Riding Hood, stepping over to the bed. "The better to hug you with," said the wolf. "What a big mouth you have," the little girl murmured in a weak voice. "The better to eat you with!" growled the wolf, and jumping out of bed, he swallowed her up too. Then, with a fat full tummy, he fell fast asleep.
Many Fairy Tales are representations ancient wisdom, and were written down to teach lessons of living to people, often so folks would beware of, and recognize, duplicity, deviousness, and those with malicious intentions ("wolf in sheep's clothing".
"What a big mouth you have," the little girl murmured in a weak voice. "The better to eat you with!" growled the wolf,
Well, I'm quite sure that rhett o rick's question was purely rhetorical anyhow.
Transparency is not part of the agenda of the big bad wolf.
Litmus Test Underground My Ass. Nice try. The standard Third Way talking point for why RW ideologies should be incorporated into Democratic Party ideology. Why should Democrats let the Big Bad Wolf (RW ideologies) into our tent? We've already seen the massive destruction this has been causing since 1984.
"Little pig, little pig, let me come in."
"No, no, not by the hair on my chinny chin chin."
"Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down."
device since the dawn of human intelligence.
Those who refuse to recognize this are either being disingenuous, or they are probably still, respectively, waiting for that particular sun to rise.
The operative word here is "accurate".
It's always easiest for a person to call a duck a duck, if they want to communicate to someone that there is a duck present.
Example:
"Hey, look everyone! Look at that enormous duck!"
There are many species of duck, with different characteristics, but despite these differences, a duck is still a duck.
This common sense method of identification through labeling applies to the species known as RWers as well, and their different characteristics.
Shakespeare perfectly illustrates the common human phenomenon of labeling as a simple, convenient, and accurate communication device:
"A rose, by any other name, is still a rose."
You can feel free to label me a progressive, a lefty, a Democrat, or a democrat, liberal, progressive, socialist , communist, occupier, leftist agitator, or whatever other talking point label the Third Way commonly uses to try to insult us radical liberal lefties with.
I'm totally out,
and not afraid to admit what I am:
I'm a progressive liberal radical left wing democratic egalitarian Occupy Democrat, and believe this to be one of my very best characteristics.
I started that DUII thread on March 7, 2008 Zorra. Today a lot of us are on the same page. I'm a member in good standing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin btw.
So here is a link to that criticism from 08.
Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191
Corporations are not people.
All power to the people, like our Constitution states.
Rec.
The software is called "persona management software." With it, a single person could put together not just a few sockpuppets, but dozens, or even hundreds, or thousands. Not just here on DU, but on dozens of forums, and Twitter, Facebook, and countless other places online. Creating personas is automated to just a few mouse clicks & keystrokes, the personas are automatically built with accounts on multiple sites - so a sockpuppet on DU might also have a Facebook page and a Twitter account and a working email address and so on. The accounts would be automatically aged - automated posts, such as fluff posts in the Lounge or the less-trafficked forums can be used to boost the post count, for example, or posts of Youtube videos or news articles can be used to boost the post count without looking like spam or raising red flags suggesting a computer is generating posts.
You can no longer assume that the only people up to no good here on DU are the Beavis and Butthead types from Free Republic with a post count of two that manage to get a half-dozen mispelled posts out before getting PPR'd. These guys are slick. Some of the accounts they've "aged" for years, so they'll seem like long-time regulars. And in fact, you can have different accounts for different purposes - a quick throw-away persona that's sacrificed as a "troll" to drop a turd in the punch bowl to take a temperature check on an issue and see how people react, and a high-age persona used to lend legitimacy and "come to the rescue" of another persona that's getting called out or challenged. And maybe several medium-age personas used to dogpile a particularly meddlesome opponent ("HOW DARE YOU MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF SHILLING! THAT HURTS OUR FEELINGS!"
http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html
By Cory Doctorow at 10:57 am Friday, Feb 18
The enormous corpus of email leaked from federal security contractor HB Gary following Anonymous's hacking of the company's servers continues to deliver compromising payloads.
This time, it's internal emails detailing the creation of "persona management" software to simplify the process of pretending to be several people at once online, in order simulate widespread support for a point of view -- astroturfing automation software. The software appears to have been developed in response to a federal government solicitation seeking automated tools for astroturfing message boards in foreign countries.
To build this capability we will create a set of personas on twitter,†blogs,†forums,†buzz,†and myspace under created names that fit the profile†(satellitejockey,†hack3rman,†etcâ€).†These accounts are maintained and updated automatically through RSS feeds,†retweets,†and linking together social media commenting between platforms.†With a pool of these accounts to choose from,†once you have a real name persona you create a Facebook and LinkedIn account using the given name,†lock those accounts down and link these accounts to a selected†#†of previously created social media accounts,†automatically pre-aging the real accounts...
Using the assigned social media accounts we can automate the posting of content that is relevant to the persona. In this case there are specific social media strategy website RSS feeds we can subscribe to and then repost content on twitter with the appropriate hashtags. In fact using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise, as one example. There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas
Greenwald writes
The New Statesman owes its readers a correction for a clear and crucial falsehood contained in this much-cited argument by its legal correspondent, David Allen Green ... One of the "myths" Green purported to debunk was that "Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA" ... Green's claim is false. Last night, international law professor Kevin Jon Heller at Melbourne Law School emailed me and ... directed me to this analysis from Mark Klamberg – a professor of international law at the University of Stockholm – who dissects Sweden's extradition law and makes Green's error as clear as it can be
Well, that certainly sounds clear, doesn't it? Greenwald accuses Green of PRETENDING to debunking the notion that "Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA" when he is actually SPREADING MORE FALSEHOODS, and Greenwald will demonstrate Green's error to use by citing Klamberg ("professor of international law at the University of Stockholm"
, whose analysis was recommended by "international law professor Kevin Jon Heller"
At this point, Greenwald (in his useful dishonest manner) quotes selectively and tendentiously from Klamberg and spews noisy volumes of hostile verbal diarrhea, in his effort to discredit Green's short to-the-point non-vituperative blog post
But what was Klamberg's article actually about? Let's quote the very beginning of it:
Many journalists have contacted me on the issue whether Julian Assange can be extradited to the US via Sweden for espionage where he might face the death penalty. The short answer is: no.
måndag, augusti 20, 2012
Extradition of Assange to the US via Sweden for espionage
http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html
Klamberg's post (worth a read!) discusses in a bit of detail whether the US could extradite Assange from Sweden -- and concludes it's almost impossible. That, by the way, is also what Assange's witness Alhem told the UK court long ago, in the only testimony offered on the subject
While we're at it, we might as well take a peak at what Kevin Jon Heller actually says:
Mark Klamberg, who is a lecturer in public international law at the University of Stockholm, has a detailed post on his personal blog about the likelihood — or unlikelihood, to be more precise — that Sweden would extradite Julian Assange to the United States. He has kindly given me permission to reprint a significant portion of it ...
Mark’s post is extremely persuasive. I’ve always thought it was ridiculous to believe that Sweden would extradite Assange to the US to face espionage charges (or treason). The UK, perhaps. But Sweden? No way. Extradition for serious non-political offenses is always a possibility, as Mark notes, but the rule of specialty would ensure that the U.S. did not bait-and-switch the Swedish government. (The US might be tempted to do so, but such blatant disregard for a basic principle of extradition would cripple the US’s ability to extradite suspects from other states.)
My thanks to Mark for permitting me to reprint his post.
Klamberg on Extraditing Assange from Sweden to the U.S. (by Kevin Jon Heller)
http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/22/klamberg-on-extraditing-assange-from-sweden-to-the-u-s/
Maybe there's a reason Greenwald doesn't practice law anymore: most judges won't tolerate little childish word games like those Greenwald plays
Maybe S4P didn't know about that? I mean Garzon and Assange are a perfect match in the sense that both have the same views re right and wrong. Torture is wrong, eg. War crimes need to be exposed and prosecuted. Can't see being 'disappointed' in someone doing what seems the most likely thing for him to do.
What the hell was wrong with the "Old" Democrats?
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."
---FDR, Economic Bill of Rights, SOTU, 1944
Please note that FDR stipulated the above as Basic Human Rights to be protected and administered by OUR Government of the People,
and NOT Commodities to be SOLD to some Americans by For Profit Corporations. (Privatized)
There was a time, not so long ago,
when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR the above values.
Sadly, this is not longer true.
The DLC, 3rd Way, "New Democrats", "Centrists" are responsible for the betrayal of these fundamental Traditional Democratic Party Values.
"New Democrats" = Old Republicans
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
"The Third Way" was founded in 2005. The OP is specifically about that 'think tank', not 'Third Way Democrats', who are, after all, part of the 'big tent' of the Democratic Party. But the OP is accusing The Third Way of controlling anti-Assange propaganda over the whole world. It calls "one huge lie" what appears to be a mistake (and about which Greenwald himself says "I'm certainly not accusing Green of bad faith – ie, of knowingly making false claims. It is difficult to discern Swedish extradition law without being a Swedish legal expert or relying on them, which is why it's a good idea for people like Green not to do it, especially in a periodical" . But Zorra has decided that it's an evil plot by The Third Way, no matter how Greenwald himself sees it.
The argument seems to boil down to "The Third Way is not on Assange's side, therefore it's reasonable to assume they are coordinating the publication of lies about him around the world, and we can call anything that makes his case look worse a lie made up by them".
of the Third Way.
They have chosen sides, and they have not chosen ours.
%3Fw%3D510%26h%3D287Well, there it is. I'm convinced. Totally. 
Todd Akin's got nothing on you.
Good lord it would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
