I wasn't aware that the belief he was paid by a powerful organization is regarded as absurd. I don't think that's silly. I do think it's far fetched to believe that the CIA as an organization orchestrated it. That was the main one I've heard.
Why would that be hard to believe? The CIA regularly does terrible things. I'd argue that the CIA is probably the most powerful drug cartel in the world- and the only reason that would be contentious is that we'd be arguing about which cartel is actually the most powerful, not whether or not the CIA is involved in drugs and arms trafficking.
Because there's a gigantic gulf between "is involved in drugs and arms trafficking" and "assassinated the US President?" Note that there are many people who have no problem believing the former and a big problem believing the latter. That's because they're vastly different claims.
Yup that would basically be my response lol. Could it be conceivable one or two lone actors in the CIA did it? Maybe? But on an organizational level the risk to "reward" is so high it just seems absurd to consider.
Especially risky since the conspiracy has them not just assassinating a president, but killing multiple people (you see at least a couple of others mentioned in this discussion), while relying on multiple highly unstable people outside the organization to put the plot into motion and trusting they won't reveal anything. All because people think Kennedy would curtail their operations somewhat.
But then a decade later you have the Church Committee directly investigating abuses from all of these agencies, which results in President Ford issuing a congressional order that explicitly forbids U.S. involvement in assassinations (going further than what people claim Kennedy was trying to do), and these agencies do...nothing.
Risky? I'd say it was very low risk considering the lack of ubiquitous technology that we have today. No cell phones, no cameras, and a very centralized media.
Unstable people are easily discredited. The CIA literally coined the term "conspiracy theory" in response to people not trusting the narrative as a means to preemptively discredit any unwanted suspicions. That's totally something a legitimate organization would do.
And stating that Kennedy would "curtail their operations somewhat" is a gross understatement. Kennedy was costing the Dulles brothers lots of money. Bay of Pigs, literally averting the takeover of a country that the CIA attempted to kick into motion- that's a bit more than curtailing somewhat.
And the Church committee was toothless. No legislation resulted from it- simply an executive order. The Church committee is also credibly accused of limiting the scope of it's inquiry in order to protect the CIA. And of course the agencies did nothing - they didn't need to do anything, they continue to operate without real oversight to this day. Spying on the Senate, then lying to Congress...zero repercussions. The Bushes, Clinton- all presidents that had interesting CIA connections.
The biggest issue they have now is competing with other Intel agencies, foreign and domestic.
Again, there is a gigantic gulf between regime change in countries largely outside of American public consciousness and assassinating the US President.
Cuba is outside of American public consciousness? Could you expand on why you believe there is a massive difference between the two? If an organization takes no issue with overthrowing democratic governments (like Guatemala), what makes their own government unique?
We pay the CIA to forward American interests. Most of their actions, even the most nefarious ones I'm aware of, have a somewhat believable rationale as to how they fit into that overall priority - often extremely imperfectly in both ends and in means. So if someone could put forth a theory for how assassinating JFK would benefit CIA or the US then sure. But largely the CIA implication is just "big shadowy CIA is responsible for all the unexplainables."
> So if someone could put forth a theory for how assassinating JFK would benefit CIA or the US then sure
There are plenty of theories where the CIA benefit from his assassination.
> Shortly before Hunt's death in 2007, he authored an autobiography which implicated Lyndon B. Johnson in the assassination, suggesting that Johnson had orchestrated the killing with the help of CIA agents who had been angered by Kennedy's actions as president. [0]
Some think he was removed due to his immanent withdrawal from Vietnam. [1]
Nonetheless, if you are the head of an organization that deposes governments by assassination, is it really _that_ far fetched to think you are above the law and would use the tools and your disposal and experience to dispatch anyone in your way?
Yes because in one case your actions are in service of your country and in the other you will be declared a traitor and executed as such.
Edit: Did you read the "JFK decided to withdraw" link? He allegedly decided to withdraw 1000 of 17,000 Americans in Vietnam. This one step forward two steps back military strategy is par for the course for the duration of the Vietnam War. Doesn't substantiate at all why CIA would be so upset about it as to assassinate POTUS. Per your own link, it was a minor enough move that they didn't feel the need even to consult or notify South Vietnamese President Diem.
I wonder if there's a tally anywhere... I suspect that if you look at attempted vs successful regime changes, the CIA isn't actually that good at it (at least in cases where the US avoided more overt actions, like sending in the military)
Not that far-fetched. Just look at their history of shady and unethical shit. Their planning/proposal of Operation Northwoods, carrying out of MKULTRA, Iran Contra Affair, engineered coups across Central and South America, Mosaddegh, Lumumba, etc.
