It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Col. David Hunt says US helped put Hugo Chavez in power.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:58 PM
I was aware that the US helped to fund a Coup against Chavez in 2002 but it seems the US also helped to put Chavez in power, according to retired col. David Hunt.

Col. David Hunt is probably best known as a frequent Fox News commentator but he appeared on a morning talk show called 'Morning in America' and made the following statement:


"Chavez is a dangerous guy," retired Col. David Hunt told Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" fill-in host Steve Malzberg on Wednesday.
"We helped to elect the son of a gun [and] after 9/11 you don't get to threaten us."

The issue of assassination "should be on the table," Hunt said. "I'm suggesting that we use it as a tool . . . to get those guys nervous."

They interfered with another country's political process to help elect a guy and it ended up backfiring on them. How many times has this happened now?

It seems the US creates most of it's enemies.
Maybe it's time to stop playing with other countries governments.

If anyone has membership to the program's website, could you download the mp3's of that show and post them for the rest of us?

[edit on 26-8-2005 by AceOfBase]

[edit on 26-8-2005 by AceOfBase]

mod edit, per member request

[edit on 27-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:25 PM
Maybe, maybe not... who knows?

The USA helped a lot of dictators in the world to use them like Chavez and a some others. They also created, know now as terrorist groups Al-Qaeda(to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan) and another gang in south america that the CIA trained in the 70s to fight against the government in their country. But now as they trained people against other government, the dog is biting the master and the CIA don't like it...

And because of this CIA and FBI, some of the people, not the rich ones who are making money over the war in Iraq, died for the only reason that the CIA were making plans against another country....

Another thing: the government is, like the nazi, creating problems and bring solutions to control the people and get them to do whatever they want...

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
Other than what the literal definition of help and elect means, perhaps the words utilized, and their expressed meaning and usage given in such a way by Colonel Hunt in saying what he did, was used/given as a metaphor or simile?

As far as I can tell and am concerned, the US has always been vehemently against Hugo Chavez being in power in Venezuela, before his removal from power [by military coup] and after regaining power. I believe this can be substantiated via a little research. Thus my thought and inclination that Col. Hunt may have mentioned what he did, in the way he did, in a metaphorical or simile way/reference.

Anyhow, I am finding nil/nothing to substantiate the Col. Hunt mention, if taken and understood in a literal context.


I know this also happened with Slobodan Milosevic, who was elected thanks to the US NED. There are also reports that the CIA helped Saddam get into power.

The US helping of Saddam gain power in Iraq must be placed within the historical time period for which such occurred.
The Slobadan Milosevic, I am uncertain of, but I think that must also be kept and understood within the historical time period/context.

And as for your assertion that what Colonel Hunt says is true and was not mentioned in a metaphor or simile fashion/way, research would prove whether such is factual or not. Accordingly, doing the little digging I did, nothing was found remotely mentioning or confirming such, as indicated above. Again, this is based upon taking Col. Hunt's words literally and not figuratively.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
The Slobadan Milosevic, I am uncertain of, but I think that must also be kept and understood within the historical time period/context.


I've been trying to find the website I heard that on but have not been able to find it.
I normally keep PDFs of websites that have interesting information like that but I can't find it on my hard drive.

The closest I can find is this statement:

NED officials stated that they sometimes find themselves “close to the line” in terms of supporting one candidate over another. They mentioned, for example, Yugoslavia (“How could we support Milosevic?”) and Belarus, where, just prior to the grant, the head of the grantee organization resigned to become the director for a year of the campaign office of the united opposition candidate. In non-electoral situations, such as assisting Venezuelan democratic institutions, NED tries to support programs that further a broad democratic purpose rather than a more narrow, partisan one. NED is currently developing broader guidelines for avoiding the appearance of partisanship.

It's possible my memory was playing tricks on me or I read it out of context on another site. That statement does not seem to be one of support for Milosevic. I think they were just saying that neutrality would be difficult because they couldn't equally provide support to someone who they felt should not be in power.

Perhaps a mod can edit my statement about Milosevic as I can no longer edit it myself.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by AceOfBase]

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:18 AM
Well, we helped Castro into power (little known but true, a faction of the CIA was running guns in to help him), helped get Hussein into power, helped get Noriega into power, and according to some reseach , even helped get the Ayatollah into power in Iran. How long can we continue to call this "backfiring on us?" After awhile, it's pretty easy to sense a pattern. Create an enemy in order to justify continued huge military spending and defense contracts , let them operate somewhat freely as long as they don't bother us too bad on our own home soil, and then replace them either when they get out of line or when they just plain outlive their usefulness, according to the script.
Really, if you ran everything, wouldn't it be in your best interrests to make it look like there were some folks out there who were your "opposition?" Heck, maybe I'm just paranoid, but the idea of carmind and creating supposed "enemies" who are still bascially playing the part assigned to them makes perfect sense to me.

top topics

log in