Coup d'état, a slippery phrase

It is supposed to be an unlawful seizure of power, but I suspect that its usage is getting a bit muddied up.

For one instance, consider the latest fashion to call the Kennedy assassination a coup.  No, there was no coup.  Now, if LBJ ordered the hit so that he could become President, then that might be considered a coup.  However, nobody has ever said that.  Personally, I think that it is a bunch of nonsense.  Rather than to say why I think so, I just refer people back to what I wrote on the assassination itself.

Aside from this, there was the 1953 Iranian "coup d'état".  Back in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution, a lot of the reportage at the time seemed sympathetic to the revolutionaries.  The reason given was the CIA support for the "coup".  But was it really a coup?  The story is that the Shah dismissed Mossadegh and replaced him with a general.

Well, hoop-de-friggin'-do.  Monarchs have the power to dismiss Parliamentary figureheads like Mossadegh if they so chose.  If they couldn't, they'd have a different kind of government.  I looked it up.  Iran did have a constitution at that time, and the Shah did have that power.  So, was the power illegally used or not?  I'm not so sure it was illegal.  If not, it couldn't have been a coup.  One thing that I am sure of is that the Shah was a weak man.  That's why the CIA and the Brits had to step in.  He couldn't deal with it himself.

Yet another example here in the good 'ol USA.  The latest power grab by Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate has also been referred to as a coup.  No, it wasn't a coup.  But was it wise?  We'll see.

There are plenty of other examples, but this should be enough.  So, this word "coup" gets thrown out there and it seems a bit overwrought, and overused.  Pardon me for my being a stickler for definitions.  Words means things as Rush likes to say.  Let's make sure we use the right words at all times.