I'm an old man, but I still vividly remember the day that U.S. President John Kennedy was killed. The plant where I worked came to a standstill, one of my bosses cried, many people were very angry!! We all knew that our own government had killed him because he would not take orders!!

When They Killed JFK They Killed America-Paul Craig Roberts

Unlike most presidents, Kennedy was able to break with the conventional thinking of the time.
From his experience with the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Joint Chiefs’ “Operaton Northwoods,” Kennedy concluded that CIA Director Allen Dulles and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lemnitzer were both crazed by anti-communism and were a danger to Americans and the world.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016...craig-roberts/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafZkjiMpjU

If you are into JFK please check out this article and the you tube video!!

I'm afraid this event was so huge and so botched on so many levels we will never discover what really happened. There is however little doubt that Allen Douglas was both a major player and an all-around bad guy in international politics, being involved in more than one attempted coup and in general assuming he was above the law, and certainly held nothing but hatred and disrespect for JFK. Less is known about George Herbert Bush beyond the fact that he lied about early involvement in the CIA but then anyone who is attracted to positions of high power by definition seek power over others and very few are motivated by anything more complicated than wealth and self-interest. True heroes are always outnumbered by crooks in the arena of national and international power.

From what I know (mostly Hollywood movies, hehe) Kennedy helped solve the cuba crisis quite constructively.

In the above speech Kennedy emphasis the need for authenticity and straightforwardness.

Of course he assumes a liberal position, that is anti to parts of establishment and some very bad structures.

In my opionion the world/human society works exactly like that, so it is no big surprise that he's been shot dead. Either by his very opponents (professional infastructure for a well working high profile assassination?). Or only by their sympathizers, that grow in the created atmosphere.

To me it seems Kennedy wanted to do something against the USA becoming a villain state.

Over the years, I have come to believe that his error/fault in the Bay of Pigs was the reason he was killed. You can't send a few hundred special operators to their death and not get some reward.

Kennedy by most reports wasn't a very loyal husband either.

He was actively increasing the US role in SE Asia.

Some say he was voted in simply because of his looks and his wife's looks. A new media of visual to masses TV.

While the above may be subjective I can say for sure that it snowed that day about 11am.

What is this?...some form of character assassination to justify why he was killed? The error/fault in the Bay of Pigs was not due to Kennedy. Eisenhower, Nixon, and the CIA controlled by Allen Dullas were the engineers and driving forces in the plan including, at one point, keeping then president-elect Kennedy out of the loop. He was involved in later stages but was always cautious due to his distrust of the CIA in general and Dulles in particular. At the key point he was again not informed until it was underway.

The plan was a disaster from before it was implemented. The Cubans knew all about it as it was even reported well in advance in a few Miami newspapers. One important idea the CIA put forth to justify and provide assurance of quick success was the notion that mass insurrections of the Cuban people would occur. Sound familiar? Here's one quote from the wiki -

During the preliminary diversionary air field strikes the Cuban government filed a complaint with the UN to which Adlai Stevenson and Kennedy publicly denied US involvement. Kennedy did cancel the ineffective air field strikes scheduled for the morning of the Invasion to thwart any further identification of US involvement. This is widely agreed to have had no direct bearing on the outcome which wads doomed from the start in hindsight.

However since hindsight is indeed 20/20 here is the key quote

I am aware of and puzzled by subsequent blame placed on Kennedy by many in the Military, especially considering the above report included Generals and even Dulles of the CIA. Further CIA investigation expanded on those causes but none singled out Kennedy as an offender and actually recognized his more cautious ways, had he been better informed, may have possibly averted the complete disaster altogether. It is possible that the 1962 firing of Dulles and 2 other CIA officials prompted the later condemnation of Kennedy, but not the Invasion itself.

His fidelity as a husband certainly had nothing to do with his murder. Infidelity among politicians is rampant due to inflated egos, entitlement of power, and regular and extended absence of the partners. This does not make it right, but obviously assassination would be commonplace if this were a motivating factor. Most political wives are aware of the dangers of political position, and many choose to ignore it out of desire for the status, wealth and power of the job.

At first he followed military recommendations to increase "advisor" involvement in Vietnam but he wanted out and as soon as possible, believing it to be even more dangerous to US interests than the Cuban Invasion, which turned out to be true.

The above are documented facts but this is a speculative opinion. Yes there can be no doubt that the Kennedys looked great especially compared to the Nixons, but the victory was assured because of Kennedy's charisma and powerful presence bolstered by his being a great orator and debater, where Nixon of that time was a whiny man given to a persecution complex and sulking over it, lacking in social skills and the ability to handle a proper debate. Perhaps ther landslide victory would have been less lopsided had the Nixons merely looked better or the Kennedys worse, but regardless there was no way Nixon could beat Kennedy. Despite Nixon's later protests he was a crook and looked the part, and that is only partly speculation since Watergate and the tapes prove it.

IMHO this thread is aptly titled regardless of political affiliation because it took the wind out of the people's sails in believing that ordinary people had much control of the way they are governed and a dark cynicism took over and expanded over time. Certainly subsequent assassinations only added to that darkness.

Almost immediately after it had occurred, European newspapers were describing the assassination as "a right-hand man coup d'etat." In their many-more centuries' worth of national history, they immediately recognized what had just happened for what it actually was.

Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, delicately but forcefully explored the question: "Who had: (1) the motive to commit the murder, and (2) the means to do it, and(!) (3) the capability to cover it up?" Really, there is only one prime-suspect.

And he had the Texan's gall to have it done in Dallas, where he obviously hoped to also take out his other prime political opponent: Governor Connally. (Clearly, the gunmen were told, "don't touch Jackie!" When she moved to grab a piece of her husband's skull, she probably saved the Governor's life.)

Gov. Connally clearly realized his "near miss," and he related an eyewitness's account from his hospital bed, five days later. This testimony was promptly, officially, buried. (Amazingly enough, though, Gov. Connally survived ... living until 1993. But he was never again a force in Texas politics.)

It is rather amazing to me that the testimonies of the "other" two people who were also in the car(!) almost never saw the light of day, so powerful was LBJ's influence to ensure that the official story was that he had gained power legitimately.

Donald Trump just might make the same mistake that J.F.K. did in choosing a running mate!! J.F.K.'s election team needed Johnson's southerners and Chicago's gangsters to win the election!! They thought that they therefor owned him; but they found out that they did not so they got rid of him the very same way that they have gotten rid of so many others who did not bow down to them!! That is why I think Donald Trump should choose Rand Paul as his VP and prevent anyone from thinking about another coup!!

People are "thinking of another coup" all the time, and very-brave people from Secret Service et al are willing to get in the way of a bullet ... willing to give up their own lives ... even for a political candidate.

They're ready to do this every day. (Even though, of course, they don't want to ...)

Therefore, I think it best not to discuss such unpleasant realities in Internet forums.

My grandfather maintained the position with my mother, aunts, and grandmother that if I was old enough to ask the question then I was old enough for a truthful answer and I should not be lied to or given false illusions!!

If you can find it, Executive Action depicts an interesting theory: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070046/?ref_=nv_sr_2

A couple of months ago Burt Lancaster's " Executive Action " and " Twilight's Last Gleaming " were available on Amazon!!

(koff, koff ...) If it were me, then I would very-kindly suggest that "the simplest, and most-direct(!) scenario" is probably the most likely to turn out to be the actual truth.

Stop and think about it ...

1. Every significant political leader past or present, is obliged to live with the realization that he or she could be assassinated at any time. ("This fact, alone, is not unusual ...")
2. "The higher-up in the political food-chain you are," the more-likely it is that you have plenty of minions to protect you." And, since these so-called "minions" are highly-trained sacrificial professionals, the less likely it is that "the hoi-palloi" will actually manage to take you out.
3. However, also, the higher-up you are, the more likely it is that anyone who does conspire to 'take you out' will have need of a suitable 'patsy.'

In the case of the JFK assassination, it is unnecessary to complicate the scenario beyond "a 'right-hand man' coup d'etat.'" You have one prime suspect. You have utterly no need of another one.