Conspiracy Buffs: Why Kill JFK?

My first thought is to say that the reaction to these leaks would not have prevented him from winning re-election in '64. It was a more publically prudish time, when such details were not discussed in public, so I would expect most of the backlash to be against those leaking the details. And, it was also a more chauvinistic time, when lots of other prominent men of power had dalliances with mistresses (I’m looking at you, LBJ), so perhaps the reaction to his infidelity would be one of resigned acceptance, instead of outrage. Moreover, JFK would likely have gone on the offensive, denying the “allegations” and blaming the “smears” on his political opponents; in the face of this opposition, JFK may have rallied his supporters to even greater loyalty.

But, right about the time of JFK’s death, there was a sex scandal raging in the UK (the Profumo affiar), which led to the ouster of the Prime Minister’s Secretary of State for War and led to a lot of hand wringing over the influence of the Soviets. It does make one wonder about Kennedy’s reaction to the details, and whether he ever considered himself at risk of similar exposure. Judging by the fallout in Britain, it is reasonable to believe that JFK would have been seriously tarnished by a public review of his private behavior.

All of which means that, if there were indeed powerful factions within the government who wanted to topple the Kennedy administration, there would have been more effective means than a public assassination. Character assassination may have worked. So, too, would have a more clandestine death (poison, perhaps), which could then have been blamed on an unexpected health crisis.

In other words, the logic of a government sponsored public shooting of the President was never sound, *even if *you believe that the government had a reason to want to kill the President.

I’m not sure if you are merely answering the OP, or providing theories that you yourself believe, but the fact is that JFK was an ardent cold warrior and hardly a foe to the defense industry. He campaigned on the need to close the “missile gap”, and military spending consistently rose under his administration, to say nothing of the billions in expenditures he promised by launching the space race.

The idea that JFK was some peacenik who would have crippled the military, or definitely spared us the quagmire of Vietnam, is historical revisionism.

I think people whose adulthood began post-Watergate are unable to wrap their heads around the fact that JFK was a hawk - a veiled ultrahawk in some ways - and it was Nixon who campaigned on something a lot like a peacenik platform.

It was Kennedy to took us to the teetering brink of global nuclear war over the relatively inconsequential Cuban Missile Crisis. Short-range missiles in Cuba were less of a threat than SLBMs already patrolling our coastline. Forcing a withdrawal could have taken a much less confrontational route, one not based on JFK’s single high-level spy reporting from within the Kremlin. Just because you have a partial view of your opponent’s cards doesn’t mean you can run a successful bluff.

Thing is, in America we have elections for President every four years. If the Powers That Be find that a particular president won’t play ball, they can get themselves a new one very soon. Kennedy had less than a year left in his first term. If the Illuminati can’t manage a rogue president who won’t play ball for one year, then what good are they?

And the thing is, the idea that Kennedy–unlike FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, or Reagan–was somehow uniquely hostile to the interests of the Powers That Be is ludicrous. Kennedy was a fully invested member of the club. And if he was such a horrible loose cannon that he had to be removed, why did they let him become senator and then president in the first place? It wasn’t like he suddenly changed once he got in office.

Man, you’re still not getting it!

It was an LBJ - RFK job!

LBJ and RFK both wanted the presidency, so they hatched a deal: LBJ would use his Texas connections to line up the hit, including pinning it on the sad-sack Oswald.

Then, supposedly grief-stricken RFK would pretend to throw all the resources of the Justice Department into the investigation, but really do it in a way that sabotaged it, including stacking the Warren Commission with guys who would go along. LBJ’s knowledge of the players on the Hill helped there.

Then, the plan was that LBJ would nominate RFK as his running mate in '64, giving RFK a clear shot at the nomination at the end of LBJ’s term.

Of course, that wily Texan was playing the Massachusetts rich kid. LBJ never intended to appoint that kind of powerful rival as his running mate, especially having just shown how easy it was for the VEEP to er, arrange for a vacancy in the Oval Office. LBJ wasn’t ever going to be in RFK’s cross-hairs!

So that’s why LBJ named Humphrey as his stooge V-P. LBJ knew that HH was too weak to ever turn on him.

And by that time, RFK was played, and he knew it. He couldn’t come clean about what had happened, because he’d just be talking himself into Death Row in Texas. So he had to lie in the weeds until the '68 election, when he had a good chance at taking down the stooge HH, becoming President, and then discovering new “evidence” that pointed to LBJ, as the grassy knoll gunman.

But again, LBJ was the master poker player. He saw several moves ahead and knew where RFK was going. So he lines up one more hit, with Sirhan Sirhan as the patsy.

But LBJ knows his time in the White House is coming to an end, and he’ll need a protector once he’s out of office.

Humphrey? No way. HH may be a stooge, but he’s from Minnesota, one of the most idealistic states in the nation. He won’t cover anything up. Minnesotans are just too cheerfully honest, as Garrison Keillor would later show.

So who does LBJ turn to? He needs someone dark; unscrupulous; someone who can take another Kennedy assassination in stride, and will be be in a position to cover it up afterward. There’s only one person in US politics who fits the bill: Tricky Dick himself!

So LBJ makes a deal with the devil: Nixon arranges the hit on RFK; LBJ covers it up while he’s in office, and makes sure the Democratic convention is such a disaster that Nixon is sure of victory. Then Nixon continues the RFK cover-up once he’s in office.

And that young couple who were seen running out of the kitchen saying “we just shot Bobby Kennedy!” ? Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower, of course. LBJ insisted on that, so that Tricky Dick would have real skin in the game.

It’s all quite simple, really.

:smack:

It’s all so clear, now!

Also, the assassination of MLK was payback for his role in the death of Malcolm X.

I note no CT’ers, including our resident (at-least-)one, have stopped by to explain or expound. Let’s keep that in mind next time they claim that they’re not given any chance to state or prove their beliefs.

This has all of the hallmarks of a mob hit.

J. Edgar Hoover was gay and had an ongoing affair with a senior FBI agent Clyde Tolson. Looking at photos of them traveling together, sitting on the beach together, dining together, you get the image of a really cute gay couple in today’s eyes. Looking through the lens of the 50’s no one would have thought anything queer about it (pun intended) at all.

The hotels that that J and Clyde would stay were all mobbed up back in the day. Pretty much guaranteed that the local hoteliers had some high dollar camera glass focused on their bedroom (or the bedroom of any important client). Those negatives made it into Hoovers’ hands. And from that day on the mob got a free ride under Hoover’s FBI.

Hoover hated the Kennedy’s, the Mob hated the Kennedy’s. The Kennedy’s wanted Hoover out. The Kennedy’s wanted to lean on the Mob. Hmmmmm. . . what to do? How about find a loner/loser fall-guy to pull the trigger, and then eliminate the trigger man with a loyalist that will shut up and do the time. Standard mob practice.

Except that Oswald was in police custody for 2 days before he was killed by Ruby, and Ruby’s success was entirely the result of a delay in transferring Oswald brought about by Oswald’s own decision to change his clothes (if not for the delay, Ruby would have been too late to shoot Oswald).

If the mob had really intended to eliminate the shooter, wouldn’t you have expected them to dispatch a car with a gun firing from a window within minutes of Oswald leaving the book depository on November 22nd?

JFK sent 16,000 U.S. troops to Vietnam in order to stop the spread of communism. Hardly the act of a peace-nik. The Eisenhower administration had only sent some 900 advisors to assist the South Vietnamese military.

Which other assassinations used this practice?

See, and that was the start in the buildup of troops to Vietnam that would lead to greater US involvement in the war, which would lead to deaths in battle, which would turn public opinion against the war, which would, ten years later, get the US out of Vietnam. Just as planned by that damn hippie Kennedy.

Reasons for doing a happy dance when he wound up dead, sure, reasons for assuming the enormous risk of assassinating a sitting president, not so much.

Some political insider, (James Hume[s]?) quizzed some woman at the time of JFK’s administration (allegedly, he knew at the time that K couldn’t keep his pants up) about her response, had Kennedy been found to be a rake. Result: She would be more inclined to vote for him. Health problems would have been no problem, either. He could always point to FDR, and mention his PT-109 stuff.

One of the points that has not been addressed in this thread is whether or not the CIA had anything to do with it. It is sort of the go-to suspect, in the CT world. (My own, also.)

Kennedy fucked the CIA in the whole of the Bay of Pigs operation. Then, he fired the top 3 of the CIA people, after publicly ‘taking responsibility’ for the Bay of Pigs. Dulles, Cabell and, uh, I forget the third. Lansdale??? Bissell?? (been too long). Cabell had a brother who was a politician, It is said that the brother was the mayor of Dallas.
The CIA was all over the place in the 50s and 60s. Overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala, all kinds of stuff in Africa, SA, Europe, Asia. Coups and Conspiracies were everywhere, overthrowing governments left and right (hyperbole). See France, also.
Except for the US, of course. As the movie “Executive Action” points out: the US can’t have conspiracies; it would make us a Banana Republic.

The Lone Nut was killed by a Lone Nut. With, a pitiably flimsy/idiotic excuse.

Oswald’s interview indicated that he knew it would be pointless to kill JFK, as Johnson would take his place.
Oswald, seeking fame, did NOT say that he was the killer.

The Warren Commission, appointed by LBJ, was headed by Allen Dulles, the CIA guy. The CIA guy who was involved in conspiracies and coups. The fired CIA guy. The fired CIA guy who was fired for the Bay of Pigs thing. The fired CIA guy whose brother was the mayor of the city where the firer (Kennedy) was murdered.
Bobby wouldn’t be able to prosecute, because

  1. His brother wouldn’t be there to guarantee his job as AG. There was too much bad blood between the Kennedy’s and Lyndon to assure Bobby too much of anything.
  2. It would open a whole can of worms of CIA/mob murder-for-hire stuff in the Caribbean that Bobby and JFK were involved in.
  3. If Lyndon had anything to do with it, and Bobby tried to prosecute, you can bet that Bobby’s job, if not his life, would last about the amount of time it would take to fire a(n) AG/gun.

The Warren Commission left a lot of obvious holes in the investigation. People weren’t satisfied with their investigation.
A conspiracy viewpoint is not so foolish, given the above. Everybody who howls as if somebody peed in their Post Toasties whenever a conspiracy is brought up, seems to be more than ready to mouth about ‘tinfoil hats’, thus, demonstrating themselves witty, and giving themselves a good feeling of triumphing over the armies of ignorance, and a certain smugness at being included in the intelligentsia.

Please ignore the Bolded sentence above.
Also, see, above, all of the wits who try to confuse the issue with their zaniness!

You’ll also note the jerkoff attempts at humor, above your post, sort of invalidate any attempts at a serious discussion.

Kind of like swinging one’s penis around in circles in court and ask for the judge to have the last sentence in a testimony to be re-read. Sure, both can be done, but, well, why bother, really?

One lone guy with a mediocre French rifle can’t just aim it through some iron sights and take out the most powerful man in the world because he happened to be driving by that day, can he?

You always do find a reason.

Okay.