Talk:Henry M. Jackson/Archive 1

message: New Deal Democrats borrowed a lot from Fascism and Communism, and were quite right to do so.  The system would not have survived if it had hung on to what it was when Roosevelt got elected.
Both the USA and USSR were intent on imposing their own system on the rest of the world.  There was no intention of allowing anyone to live differently from the USA in the long term.  The USA prevented elections in Vietnam because the Communists were likely to win them.  Democracy was never respected when it involved people choosing to move away from the USA.
New Deal Democrats also had no wish to end the domination of society by people who were mostly white, mostly male and almost all rich.  
As the main article says, this does flow very naturally into Reaganism.  Except Reagan depended heavily on white-racist votes in the formerly solid Democratic states of the US South.  'Neoconservatives' are embarrassed by this, of course.  They want everyone to be an identical 'unit of the individual'.  But that is the reality.
'Free Market' is also misleading.  The USA has kept the vast mass of subsidy, guarantee and regulation that the New Deal imposed.  The 'neoconservatives' show no faith in their own creed when it would cost them money if it were not so.  No one said 'let the market find its own level' in 1987, when a crash threatened to bring down the system.  Only when it comes to taking things away from poor people is regulation suddenly wicked.
'Classic Capitalism' failed in the early 1930s.  What the New Deal created used to be called the 'Mixed Economy' and should still be called  the 'Mixed Economy'.
I comment on wider matters because the main article does.  I take it to be written by some of the 'Henry Jackson Society' crowd.  Fine, so long as they allow 'right of reply'.
--GwydionM 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free to SubAmericanise 

message: I changed part of the content to accurately reflect what actually happened in the above-referenced name reversion by the politicians.  This came right out of his biography by Kaufman.
1.  The actual name of the airport is Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. "Sea-Tac" is just a nickname everyone calls it.
2.  The public was actually against changing the name back.  They loved Scoop. It was business leaders, civic leaders & politicians in the two cities (Tacoma in particular) who were afraid of losing convention business without the name of their city in the airport title.--Hokeman 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle-Tacoma International Airport name change 

message: As you can see from the disputed edit, the text a single editor wishes to censor from the article is both notable and verifiable. The editor's argument against including it is the argument that Jackson was not a neoconservative himself, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to the fact that Jackson's political philosophy was highly influential over the modern neoconservative movement by the accounts of outside observers as well as neoconservatives themselves.  -- FRCP11 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You greatly misunderstand what "POV" means in Wikipedia.  What's POV about the fact that Wolfowitz worked for Jackson, and says that Jackson influenced his political beliefs?  I see you don't dispute that this is a notable fact, and don't dispute that this fact is verifiable.  You thus have no basis for removing it. -- FRCP11 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Jake, this isn't Argument Clinic.  You have to give reasons for deleting factual verifiable information in Wikipedia, and you still haven't justified it. -- FRCP11 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I gave a verifiable cite calling Jackson a neocon forerunner.  You deleted it without explanation.  -- FRCP11 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 30 RFC 

message: Immediately after returning to Wikipedia from his 24-hour suspension, User:8bitJake deleted all of the language from the article that four out of five editors agreed was notable and verifiable.  He dishonestly titled his edit as Restore consensus version.  This is poor sportsmanship at its worst.  -- FRCP11 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying very hard to assume good faith, but 8bitJake's comments exhibit a severe reading comprehension problem, since nothing in the article calls Jackson a neoconservative. He also has a strangely blinkered definition of "truth" since he hasn't identified an untrue statement in the article. -- FRCP11 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jake, please read WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL before you dig yourself a hole you're not going to be able to get out of. While I'm glad you're grudgingly accepting that consensus is that he was a major player in what became modern neoconservatism, your edits are not showing any of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Never happened, and I have just as much a right to edit here as you do.  Senator Murray is irrelevant, and I must say the current version is among the best it's looked since I've been wathching. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 1 edits 

message: Patty Murray doesn't sit in Jackson's seat; she sits in Magnuson's seat.  So the Murray paragraph is doubly irrelevant. -- FRCP11 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patty Murray 

message: The following text is increadibly biased with Pro-neocon POV.--8bitJake 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these points appear to be verifiable, therefore elaborate on why this is POV.--Zleitzen 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've refactored this to aid discussion.  But you haven't given an explanation why any of these violate POV, other than a bald assertion. -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The statement is supported by eighteen verifiable cites.  Why do you contend this is POV?  What is the other POV? -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong about this? Are you saying that this is a poor representation of his positions?  If so, what can you provide to demonstrate that his positions are different? As noted, it's verified by a number of citations, so what is the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The statement is supported by nine verifiable cites.  Why do you contend this is POV?  What is the other POV?  Who has said "There is no link between Jackson and neoconservatism"? -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. where's the POV issue?  This is, again, a factual statement? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you contend Kaufman didn't say this (the cite is on the page)?  What is your proposed edit? -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with FRCP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Discussed above.  This is a consensus and verified edit, consistent with the Peter Beinart page. -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Been there, done that.  Liberal hawk is entirely supported, and we discussed this edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Both statements are verified.  What do you contend is the NPOV version?  What additional text belongs?  -- FRCP11 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: what's the problem with this.  Simms did say it, and the Society does disclaim the affillation.  What's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FRCP, You are beginning to sound like a broken record. I refer you back to the vegetarian analogy. Furthermore if the likes of Beinart and Kaufman are quoted, this does not make them verifiable, your best sources are not neutral and objectively acceptable, they are agenda-based commentators on the late Senator's alleged and I emphasise alleged (since it is most certainly not verified) neo-conservatist legacy. Your tedious counter-argument to this normally goes "Refer me to verifiable sources to the contrary". This is not good enough. You are the one making the contentious assertions, the burden of proof and verifiability falls on you and to date, in my opinion, the case you have built based on the sources you have offered is tenuous to say the least and utterly ambiguous at best. End of term report for FRCP11 - Must do better, try harder, Student must come to terms and grasp the meaning of the word "verifiable". Bazzajf 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, even if one believes that Senator Jackson's name and reputation was entirely hijacked by neoconservatives and Scoop's spinning in his grave, how do you think that makes the article's mention of the neocons identifying him as a major influence not verifiable, given the number of references others have provided? The article already has (in its lead) a line about Jackson not being a self-identifying neocon. And why does the burden of proof fall only on those making the link with neoconservatism (especially after they've produced so many references. And "neoconservative" is not actually regarded as an insult in the mainstream (yet).  Bwithh 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or it used to have a line in the lead about the non self identifying. I've lost track of what version this article is on Bwithh 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, I don't understand the vegetarian argument. I don't see how Jackson's foreign policy philosophy is worlds away from the neoconservatives. There are probably signfiant differences and variations of interpretation but it seems misleading to set them up as opposites. Bwithh 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: FRCP11 and Badlydrawnjeff appear to be applying standards in keeping with the Washington State History Encyclopedia - and are hardly representative of a "gang" or cabal illustrating "what is wrong with wikipedia". If it's acceptable for that encyclopedia to detail Jackson's "neo-conservative" legacy, then one would need to do some fast talking to claim it's POV and disputable here.--Zleitzen 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep it civil, Jake. In any case, the neo-conservatism bit was first added in September of 2005 by an anonymous editor from Virginia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This entry doesn't claim he's a neo-con, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The section of Jackson's entry in the Washington State History Encyclopedia entitled Neoconservative Legacy is a bit of a giveaway. --Zleitzen 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That encyclopedia would be guilty of sourcing the same agenda-based commentators if that is the case and in no way does it make this spurious radical claim "verifiable". This allegation of Jackson's neo-conservatist legacy remains unverified and I have little faith in the mutual abilities of "tweedle-dum" and "tweedle-dee" to proffer anything substantial to give their fruitless quest (to establish nonsense as a mainstay on WP articles) even a modicum of integrity.Bazzajf 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... you kind of undermine the credibility of your own position if you resort to childish and exaggerated ad hominem attacks. Please read WP:CIVIL Bwithh 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bazzajf's comments are not serious. Editors who insist on the insertion of Jackson's legacy on neoconservatives are echoing the views of all mainstream sources and encyclopedias - including international sources such as the Guardian . This matter should be closed.--Zleitzen 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 7 RFC: POV tag 

message: "Jackson believed that evil should be confronted with power. His support for civil rights and equality at home, married to his opposition to detente, his support for human rights and democratic allies, and his firm belief that the United States could be a force for good in the world inspired a legion of loyal aides who went on to propound Jackson's philosophy as part of neoconservatism." --8bitJake 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is supported by eighteen verifiable cites.  Why do you contend this is POV?  What is the other POV? -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong about this? Are you saying that this is a poor representation of his positions?  If so, what can you provide to demonstrate that his positions are different? As noted, it's verified by a number of citations, so what is the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson believed that evil should be confronted with power...

message: " Many journalists and scholars across the political spectrum have noted links between Senator Jackson and modern neoconservatism." --8bitJake 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is supported by nine verifiable cites.  Why do you contend this is POV?  What is the other POV?  Who has said "There is no link between Jackson and neoconservatism"? -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. where's the POV issue?  This is, again, a factual statement? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Many journalists and scholars

message: "Jackson biographer Robert Kaufman says "There is no question in my mind that the people who supported Iraq are supporting Henry Jackson's instincts." --8bitJake 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you contend Kaufman didn't say this (the cite is on the page)?  What is your proposed edit? -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with FRCP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaufman quote

message: "Peter Beinart, a liberal hawk" [44] --8bitJake 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed above.  This is a consensus and verified edit, consistent with the Peter Beinart page. -- FRCP11 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Been there, done that.  Liberal hawk is entirely supported, and we discussed this edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beinart characterization

message: "At its inaugural meeting, professor Brendan Simms praised Jackson's legacy, and criticized the "near-demonic hatred" many hold for neoconservatives, and noted that neoconservative ideas "come very much from within the mainstream tradition of U.S. foreign policy."[48] The Society, however, disclaims any neoconservative affiliation.[49]"
--8bitJake 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both statements are verified.  What do you contend is the NPOV version?  What additional text belongs?  -- FRCP11 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: what's the problem with this.  Simms did say it, and the Society does disclaim the affillation.  What's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FRCP, You are beginning to sound like a broken record. I refer you back to the vegetarian analogy. Furthermore if the likes of Beinart and Kaufman are quoted, this does not make them verifiable, your best sources are not neutral and objectively acceptable, they are agenda-based commentators on the late Senator's alleged and I emphasise alleged (since it is most certainly not verified) neo-conservatist legacy. Your tedious counter-argument to this normally goes "Refer me to verifiable sources to the contrary". This is not good enough. You are the one making the contentious assertions, the burden of proof and verifiability falls on you and to date, in my opinion, the case you have built based on the sources you have offered is tenuous to say the least and utterly ambiguous at best. End of term report for FRCP11 - Must do better, try harder, Student must come to terms and grasp the meaning of the word "verifiable". Bazzajf 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, even if one believes that Senator Jackson's name and reputation was entirely hijacked by neoconservatives and Scoop's spinning in his grave, how do you think that makes the article's mention of the neocons identifying him as a major influence not verifiable, given the number of references others have provided? The article already has (in its lead) a line about Jackson not being a self-identifying neocon. And why does the burden of proof fall only on those making the link with neoconservatism (especially after they've produced so many references. And "neoconservative" is not actually regarded as an insult in the mainstream (yet).  Bwithh 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or it used to have a line in the lead about the non self identifying. I've lost track of what version this article is on Bwithh 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, I don't understand the vegetarian argument. I don't see how Jackson's foreign policy philosophy is worlds away from the neoconservatives. There are probably signfiant differences and variations of interpretation but it seems misleading to set them up as opposites. Bwithh 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: FRCP11 and Badlydrawnjeff appear to be applying standards in keeping with the Washington State History Encyclopedia - and are hardly representative of a "gang" or cabal illustrating "what is wrong with wikipedia". If it's acceptable for that encyclopedia to detail Jackson's "neo-conservative" legacy, then one would need to do some fast talking to claim it's POV and disputable here.--Zleitzen 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep it civil, Jake. In any case, the neo-conservatism bit was first added in September of 2005 by an anonymous editor from Virginia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This entry doesn't claim he's a neo-con, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The section of Jackson's entry in the Washington State History Encyclopedia entitled Neoconservative Legacy is a bit of a giveaway. --Zleitzen 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That encyclopedia would be guilty of sourcing the same agenda-based commentators if that is the case and in no way does it make this spurious radical claim "verifiable". This allegation of Jackson's neo-conservatist legacy remains unverified and I have little faith in the mutual abilities of "tweedle-dum" and "tweedle-dee" to proffer anything substantial to give their fruitless quest (to establish nonsense as a mainstay on WP articles) even a modicum of integrity.Bazzajf 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... you kind of undermine the credibility of your own position if you resort to childish and exaggerated ad hominem attacks. Please read WP:CIVIL Bwithh 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bazzajf's comments are not serious. Editors who insist on the insertion of Jackson's legacy on neoconservatives are echoing the views of all mainstream sources and encyclopedias - including international sources such as the Guardian . This matter should be closed.--Zleitzen 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Jackson society

message: I came here from the RFC. The section "Influence on neoconservatism" clearly belongs in the article. It heavily references reliable sources, which make it clear that Jackson had a clear influence on the neoconservative movement. I have two suggestions:
#State that neoconservatism did not form as a movement until near the very end of Jackson's career, and that he did not identify himself as a member.
#Rewrite the sentence about what Simms said just to note that he praised Jackson's legacy; I don't think the subsequent part of the sentence praising neoconservatism is relevant. Merzbow 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Section Belongs

message: *I came here through the "random article" link and read through the text upon seeing the "POV" tag. From a first look through I believe that this is not a POV article. I must say that I was rather surprised when I found the talk page to be in a state of chaos, so I feel that I, as an outside opinion, I should comment on the article. From what I can see on the current revision there is nothing that can be considered POV. Sentences which are slightly more contreversial are sourced with at least 1, if not 2,3,4, or even 5 sources. An article is not POV if it contains information that critisizes the subject of the article, it is only POV if the information which does critisize is unsourced. "Bad" info about the subject is not POV,  as long as it is presented evenly.--SomeStranger (t|c) 12:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the POV tag

message: *This should really be in the article btw. Here is the description of Jackson's association with the Coalition from Right Web (a left-wing US political watchdog/information gathering organization dedicated to monitoring US military/security/foreign relations (mostly Republican) power networks and is a continuation of Group Watch which started in 1985; its mission statement is that it "hopes to add to the growing national movement of concerned citizens who are working to check the rightward drift of the country."):
:"The CDM was formed in 1972 by the late Sen Henry Jackson (D-WA) who headed the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Jackson and his coalition favored a strong military and promoted the concept of "peace through strength."(4) The CDM has its roots in the intellectual movement of neoconservatism--intellectual and pragmatic, with an emphasis on democracy, anticommunism, and globalism. (3,4)) By the mid-1970s, the Vietnam war had cooled the ardor of the American public for the policy of interventionism, a philosophy of great importance to the CDM. The election of President Jimmy Carter pushed the "hardliners" into action and, in 1976, the CDM helped to found the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a lobby group for containment militarism. The CPD developed and implemented a new "Soviet Threat" campaign. (4) The broader goal of CDM, however, was to reinstate containment militarism as the central theme of U.S. foreign policy. (4) The CDM argued that the U.S. must have a strong national defense and a foreign policy of active resistance to what it calls "totalitarianism and repression." Further it urges strong support for "foreign allies who share America's democratic values--whether it is the government of Israel in the Middle East or the government of El Salvador's Jose Napoleon Duarte in Central America."(10)"
:(numbered references footnotes are in the weblink)
*Question Does the Right Web website have a "rich pro-neo con bias" too? Bwithh 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Coalition for a Democratic Majority]]

message: *Also, maybe this is some kind of CIA disinformation operation to further smear the Senator's memory, but according to this news report, Senator Jackson's nickname was based on his paperboy activities rather than a cartoon character. Bwithh 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scoop" nickname

message: *Excerpts only to avoid copyright infringement. If you want the full text and/or worry I might be doctoring the text, you can buy it for $4 from this link. (note that the version I am using is from the Factiva database and has a 2167 word count compared to the nytimes.com archive version with 2201 words). There may be some useful stuff for the article:
Obituary; 1
SENATOR HENRY M. JACKSON IS DEAD AT 71
By DAVID SHRIBMAN
2167 words
3 September 1983
The New York Times
Late City Final Edition
English
Copyright 1983 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- Senator Henry M. Jackson, the Washington Democrat who served in Congress for more than half of this century, ran for President twice and was regarded as one of the nation's leading voices on military affairs, died Thursday night in Everett, Wash., after suffering a massive heart attack. He was 71 years old.
Mr. Jackson died hours after he called a news conference in Everett to deplore the downing of a South Korean airliner by a Soviet fighter plane.
...
In nearly 43 years in Congress, Mr. Jackson was involved in the major themes of American political life, from the issues of the early years of the nuclear age to the arcane details of strategic arms treaties, and from the drama of the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 to efforts in the 1970's to the freedom for Soviet Jews.
...
Shortly before President Reagan left California this morning to return to Washington, he said he and Mrs. Reagan were deeply saddened to hear of Senator Jackson's death. He was a friend, colleague, a true patriot, and a devoted servant of the people, Mr. Reagan said. 
...
He was a strenuous supporter of organized labor and civil rights. In the last decade he emerged as a leader of a strain of Democrats committed to a strong national defense and skeptical of their party's impulses in foreign affairs. These Democrats, some of whom called themselves neoconservatives, often regarded Mr. Jackson as the symbol of the party's traditional center. They supported him vigorously when he campaigned for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976. 
...
Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, characterized him as a great statesman and guiding force for democracy who never wavered in his dedication to the true principles of peace, liberty and freedom.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that he felt a deep and personal loss and added, The Senate has lost one of its great leaders.
Senator Jackson's death was also seen as a loss for the labor movement, which had given him considerable support in his Presidential campaigns. Labor had no stauncher friend, said Lane Kirkland, the president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. He shared our commitment to social and economic justice and to a strong national defense adequate to protect those values against totalitarians of the left or the right.
...
Henry Martin Jackson was born in Everett May 31, 1912, the son of Norwegian immigrants. His father was a building contractor, his mother a devoutly religious woman, and on the wood-plank streets of his hometown the young Henry Jackson drew from their examples of hard work and demands for achievement. As a newspaper delivery boy he once set a record by delivering 74,880 copies of The Everett Herald without a single complaint. 
His sister called him Scoop because she thought he resembled a character in a cartoon strip and the name remained with him, even on the floor of the Senate.
...
In 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy considered Mr. Jackson for the Vice Presidential nomination that eventually was given to Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Shortly afterward Kennedy, who had pledged to select a Protestant to head the party, chose Senator Jackson to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
...
Mr. Jackson was a longtime supporter of American involvement in Southeast Asia. In 1962 he urged that the United States draw the line in Laos. Later, though he muted his views on Vietnam as the nation grew weary of American involvement there, and even voted against President Ford's request in 1975 for emergency aid for the deteriorating Government of South Vietnam, Senator Jackson retained his belief that the United States had been correct in entering the Vietnam War.
The basic decision to go into Vietnam was right, he said in April 1975, when such a position was unfashionable.
He also was a leading advocate of the antimissile missile, arguing that the Soviet Union was a dangerous, unpredictable opponent. He held up approval of the first treaty on limiting strategic arms, insisting that future treaties not limit the United States to missile levels inferior to those of the Soviet Union. He was perhaps the most vociferous Democratic opponent of the second strategic arms pact. Defense and Conservation
Through his years in the capital, Mr. Jackson's commitment to the national defense has been coupled with his dedication to winning military contracts for Boeing. He was sometimes referred to in the capital as the Senator from Boeing, which he resented bitterly. He was, however, criticized for permitting a Boeing lobbyist to operate out of his Senate office in the unsuccessful battle for a Federal subsidy to build the supersonic transport plane.
...
The aircraft failed to win Congress's support. Senator Jackson's support of the measure angered some conservationists. But he regarded himself as a protector of the environment and was identified with Congressional battles over strip mining and land-use questions. He was a major architect of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the first modern statement of the nation's environmental goals. It created the Environmental Protection Agency.
Senator Jackson won perhaps his greatest attention for his efforts in behalf of Israel and Soviet Jews. He dated his repugnance to anti-Semitism to lectures from his mother. He solidified his support for the survival of Israel after a visit to a Nazi concentration camp. 
...
In 1974 he prevailed in persuading Congress to tie an easing of trade barriers to provide freer passage of Jews out of the Soviet Union. The arrangement collapsed a year later, but it won Mr. Jackson the support of many influential American Jews.
Today, Howard I. Friedman, president of the American Jewish Committee, said Mr. Jackson was a man whose name will ever be associated with American legislation that already has helped more than a quarter of a million Jews emigrate from the Soviet Union to freedom.
Bwithh 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =Jackson's New York Times Obit

message: *I also found this when I was checking up on Scoop's nickname:
* NYTimes article:Panel Says Jackson Gave Secret Advice to C.I.A.; Panel Asserts Jackson Gave Secret Advice to C.I.A. Denial on I.T.T. Funds
*For more on the CIA-IIT connection, see this online version of the Church Committee report (search in the page for "Covert Action and Multinational Corporations"): http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp 
*According to the wikipedia article on IIT, the company's headquarters in New York City was bombed by protestors in retaliation for its financial involvement in the coup.
Bwithh 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =Jackson's involvement in cover-up of CIA-sponsored [[Chilean coup of 1973]]

message: Substituted at 14:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment