Did the CIA Kill JFK?
The conspiracy’s theorist’s old reliable: Did the CIA Kill JFK? We brought in Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon to debate in the time-honored tradition of Pardon the Interruption.
MICHAEL WILBON: "Tony, I know you've always been a proponent of the conspiracy theory surrounding the JFK assassination, but I just don't see the evidence to support it. The Warren Commission conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone."
TONY KORNHEISER: "Michael, the Warren Commission was a whitewash. There's too much evidence pointing to the involvement of multiple gunmen and the CIA. Have you ever looked into the testimony of the witnesses on the grassy knoll?"
MICHAEL WILBON: "I have, and I still believe that the majority of those witnesses were unreliable or mistaken. The physical evidence, including the trajectory of the bullets, points to Oswald as the sole gunman."
TONY KORNHEISER: "But what about the fact that Oswald was a CIA asset? And the inconsistencies in the investigation and the handling of evidence? It's clear to me that there was a cover-up."
MICHAEL WILBON: "I understand that there have been questions about the investigation, but I believe that those can be explained by the chaos and confusion of the moment. As for Oswald being a CIA asset, there's no concrete evidence to support that claim."
TONY KORNHEISER: "No evidence? Are you kidding me? Haven't you seen those documents the Biden administration just released?"
MICHAEL WILBON: "I have, but I think it's important to look at them in context. Just because there are connections or associations doesn't necessarily mean there was a direct involvement in the assassination."
TONY KORNHEISER: [increasingly loud] "Oh please. And what about
the magic bullet theory? It defies the laws of physics. It's clear to me that there was a larger conspiracy at play here."
MICHAEL WILBON: [calmly] "Tony, I understand your skepticism and I respect your opinion, but I believe that the evidence, when taken as a whole, points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman. It's important to approach this with an open mind, but also not to jump to conclusions --
TONY KORNHEISER: [angrily]: "Don't condescend to me Michael, I've done my research and I've looked at the evidence from all angles. I'm not just jumping to conclusions, I truly believe there was a conspiracy."
MICHAEL WILBON: "OK, I'll humor you. Why would the CIA want to kill JFK?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "There are a lot of theories out there, but one of the main ones is that JFK was pushing for more transparency and accountability within the CIA, and they didn't want to lose their power and influence. Additionally, there's the belief that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam and that would have been a major blow to the military-industrial complex."
MICHAEL WILBON: "OK Tony, but which one do you believe?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "I think both of those theories have some merit. The CIA's desire for power and influence, as well as JFK's plans for Vietnam, could have been motives for the assassination. But ultimately, we may never know the true motivations behind it. All I know is that the evidence points to a larger conspiracy and I believe it's important to keep questioning the official narrative."
MICHAEL WILBON: "How can you believe in a conspiracy if you don't even know which conspiracy you believe? I order you to pick one."
TONY KORNHEISER: "Michael, it's not that simple. I believe that there were multiple factors at play in the assassination, and it's likely that different people within the CIA or other organizations had different motives. I can't say for certain which one was the main driving force behind it. But the fact remains that there are too many inconsistencies in the official story and too much evidence pointing to a larger conspiracy for me to simply accept that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone."
MICHAEL WILBON: "OK then you nincompoop. Would you say it's more or less likely than 50% that the CIA was involved?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "I would say that it is more likely than 50% that the CIA was involved in some way, based on the evidence and inconsistencies I've seen. But again, it's important to note that the true motivations and extent of the CIA's involvement may never be known for certain."
MICHAEL WILBON: "OK more or less likely than 60% that the CIA was involved?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "Michael, as I've said before, it's difficult to put a specific percentage on it. But, based on the evidence and inconsistencies I've seen, I believe it is more likely than not that the CIA was involved in some way."
MICHAEL WILBON: "So you're able to say that it's higher than 50%, but may or may not be higher than 60%?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "Yes, that's correct. I believe it's more likely than 50% that the CIA was involved, but I can't say for certain if it's higher than 60% because the true extent of their involvement may never be known."
MICHAEL WILBON: "What about 52%? Do you think it's more or less likely than 52% that the CIA was involved?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "Michael, I think it's more likely than 52% that the CIA was involved, based on the evidence and inconsistencies I've seen in the official story."
MICHAEL WILBON: "OK great, we're making progress. How about 54%? More or less likely?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "I would still say it's more likely than 54% that the CIA was involved, as my opinion is based on the inconsistencies and evidence that point to a larger conspiracy."
MICHAEL WILBON: "What about 59%? More or less likely?"
TONY KORNHEISER: "I would still say it's more likely than 59% that the CIA was involved, as my opinion is based on the inconsistencies and evidence that point to a larger conspiracy."
MICHAEL WILBON: "How about 59.99%? More or less likely?”
TONY KORNHEISER: "Michael, I can't give you a specific percentage because I don't have all the information and it's not a matter of simple math. I believe that the evidence points to a larger conspiracy but I can't say for certain the extent of the CIA's involvement. It's more complex than a simple percentage can express."
