j. l. navarro

Nostradamus & The War x20 - Part III

Home | Stop Over at Canacas | Book Links | Contact | War Poems | Zona Roja | Scraps | Plague in Iraq | The Last Pope | Prophet Yahweh | Chemtrails in Vegas | History Lesson | Notes from the Very Last Resort | There's One Born Every Minute | Lowrider | Far Out Homies | Nude | Poems


(21 January 2005)


Four years ago on the eve of President Bush's first inauguration, a hoax Nostradamus prophecy described the new president as "The Village Idiot." On the rainy and chilly day of his first inauguration, Bush's armor plated limousine and serried ranks of armed secret service guards were momentarily stopped by a crowd of 10,000 protesters along Pennsylvania Avenue. They were demonstrating against the questionable election shenanigans in Florida that they believed robbed the rightfully elected president, Al Gore, of his presidency. Among the many placard messages melting in the freezing rain was the "Village Idiot" label.

Now it is four years later. On this day following President Bush's second inauguration, it is time to reexamine an authentic prophecy from the 16th-century French seer Nostradamus that may present his authentic label for the US president. It contains such rare and obvious clues to make it a sure prophecy for "Dubiya," the much cherished and well-known nickname for President Bush. Century 6 Quatrain 13 of Nostradamus' prophetic masterpiece from the 1550s says:

Vn dubieux ne viendra loing du regne,
La plus grand part le voudra soustenir:
Vn Capitole ne voundra point qu'il regne,
Sa grande change ne pourra maintenir.

A doubtful one will not come far from the realm,
The greater part will want to support him:
A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all,
His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

Nostradamus had a passion for hiding major historical figures behind their nicknames, especially if the nickname draws a wicked pun in old French. He only used the word "dubieux" (dubious or doubtful one) and its variant "dubieuse" once in over 36,000 words of his major prophetic work about the future of the world. The rarity is significant. It brings interpretive pressure to bare on its application to one important person in his future history, rather than using this word generally. An obscure Nostradamus prophecy becomes clear when an interpreter uses the right word as a key that unlocks its secrets. The word "dubieux/dubieuse" unlocks two quatrains (6 Q13 and 6 Q95) revealing a similar theme of two leaders, a father and son, and their checkered destinies. Are these the father--former President George Herbert Walker Bush (1988-1992)--and his son, George W. Bush?

This leader, at least from Nostradamus' point of view is a doubtful and dubious one. That means he is someone that bears the burden of illegitimacy in the seat of power. He could be one untrained and unprepared for the job thrust to him by means or the fate of being born the scion of either a royal or political dynasty. He is a "doubtful" man expected to follow his father to the seat of power who is less equipped emotionally and intellectually for the job. It is someone who could have great visions without a grasp of reality to see them fulfilled.. It is true, that many of these caveats can be applied to a whole assortment of mediocre or ill-starred leaders since Nostradamus composed these lines sometime in 1556. Indeed this prophecy was applied by me in 1997 to a great though flawed leader, President Richard Nixon, and the Watergate scandal in my book "Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies" (http://www.hogueprophecy.com/ncomplet.htm).

A good Nostradamus scholar is ever ready to consider new possibilities, especially if those include a word or phrase that matches a unique slang term or nickname. Until "W" or "Dubiya" Bush became president of the United States there had not been ANYONE whose name phonetically matched the word "dubieux" so closely!

Many sympathetic supporters of President G.W. Bush have written to me over the last four years arguing that this prophecy better applies itself to the man Bush defeated in the disputed (doubtful) vote count in Florida 2000, Al Gore. I would have agreed with them if it was not for the near-perfect phonetic match for Bush's nickname--Dubiya--with "dubieux."

A highly contentious debate in America over Bush's legitimacy as a leader has only intensified in four years, yet so has his support. A sight majority of Americans believe Bush is a bold leader in war. He is a man of God in the White House and a compassionate conservative poised to revolutionize the country. However, to that half of the United States and the majority of the world that sees him as a dangerous, unilateralist "cowboy" president, they might find support in Nostradamus' pun for "dubious" Dubiya. His detractors will remind us of Bush's record breaking deficit spending, his cutting taxes by trillions of dollars just when the nation finds itself needing to finance and fight a global world war of terrorism. One might call the president dubious for diverting US forces away from seeking and destroying the perpetrator of such a war--al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan--to invade Iraq. Is it not "dubious" to invade a country that has not attacked the US in the war on terror? If I invaded a country, cut tax revenue while draining the coffers of the nation by hundreds of billions of dollars--several billion a month--without any exit strategy, or post war strategy plan, would you not call me a doubtful one? It is nearly two years since Bush led America into Iraq. After a brief war and the violence of the endless post "liberation" period, 100,000 Iraqis had been killed. They are mostly civilians. Another 1,400 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 12,000 wounded in a subsequent insurrection for which Bush and his administartion never planned. But if the butcher's bill for this war is not proof enough of doubtful leadership, we recently find out from the Bush administration that his original reason for killing and maiming all those people actually never existed. The grounds for going to war, ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was a fluke. It is official. There are no weapons.

"Bring it on!" taunted the president to the terrorists and they did. A war of terrorism rages on the streets of Iraq where there was no war. Now that country is on the verge of a three way civil war between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. The administration's solution to a deepening quagmire in Iraq is to spread the conflict into Iran with air strikes planned as early as the summer of 2005. Those of you who listen to me on radio and read my articles already know that I have used astrological divination to predict and date such a planned air strike on Iran coming no sooner than the latter half of this summer in 2005. Moreover, I might add that I reported this potential war many months before Seymour Hersh came to the same date and conclusions in his recent New Yorker article. (See: SATURN'S PRESIDENT: http://www.hogueprophecy.com/archiv42.htm)

If Bush's behavior in Iraq is not doubtful enough then consider the Patriot Act that puts into doubt many freedoms Americans enjoy--now sacrificed to fight a war on terror. There is the dubious plan to partially privatize US Social Security. The president encourages CEOs to out-source US jobs. He promotes a Homeland Security policy that leaves the southern borders of the US wide open to Mexico. Each year millions of illegal aliens flood in--this includes hundreds of undocumented aliens from known terrorist harboring nations. But if rolling back freedoms is not dubious enough there is the rolling back of restrictions against industries polluting water, air and earth in the US that would make a Republican President like Richard Nixon (the man who established the Environmental Protection Agency) roll in his grave.

I have no doubt that supporters of Dubiya will cry "foul!" But four and a half centuries ago, someone cried "dubieux!"

Let us take apart Nostradamus' Century 6 Quatrain 13 line by line:

A doubtful (dubious) one will not come far from the realm...

Beyond the argument that "dubieux" stands for "Dubiya" President Bush is noted for his lack of interest in visiting foreign lands unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Even now, compared to other modern presidents, such as Nixon, Carter, Reagan, even his father George H.W. Bush, and Clinton, he has put in the fewest frequent foreign flyer miles of any modern president. It could be said that he has and "will" continue not to venture "far from the realm" of the US.

...The greater part will want to support him...

This fits G.W. Bush. Though the country be divided, and despite those who latch onto all the themes listed above that support his being called "dubious," it is a fact that after four years Bush gained significant popular support. He transformed a popular vote deficit of 500,000 in 2000 into a slim but telling mandate over J.F. Kerry in the 2004 election of 3.5 million. So one could say, as Nostradamus did, that the "greater part will" and did "want to support him."

...A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all...

This prophecy contains not one but TWO clear and rare references supporting a US president as the theme of this vision: "dubieux" for Dubiya, and "Capitole" for the US "Capitol" building. Out of 36,000 words of Nostradamus, "Capitole" is only used once.

The line is ominous if it applies to Bush. At some stage the "Capitol," meaning the US house and Senate, may move to impeach or force President Bush to leave office. Bush's political party now has a majority in the House and Senate. I cannot rule out a long held gut feeling that Bush will find his presidency betrayed by members of his party. But we will see. Perhaps by the mid-term elections scheduled in 2006 the opposition Democratic party may take back the House of Representatives and Senate.

The last line says:

...His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

Few presidents have risked more in economic and foreign policy than G.W. Bush. He has made it clear that he intends to prosecute his agenda with redoubled intensity in the next four years, despite all signs of flaws and vague planning. His second inauguration speech defined a grand and some are saying militant vision throwing down the gauntlet to bring democratic freedoms to people beyond Iraq--to dictatorships around the world. Though he did not mention them by name, the emerging message between the lines of his speech to countries like Syria, Iran and North Korea is: become democratic "or else." Does this mean that his presidency will fall because his ambitions are too doubtfully grandiose? Can he disarm or use military force to defeat Iran and North Korea, or bring democracy to the Arab nations of the Middle East, transform the US Judiciary, cause US tax reform, transform the US Social Security System all in four years? Is the president a visionary, or a dreamer burdened with a vision too grand and too dubiously thought out to maintain?

Einstein once said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius knows its limits."

Does Bush know his limits?

The president himself has said that his new mandate has earned him much "political capital" and he aims to spend it. There are others in his own political party that have also earned political capital for keeping mum about their differences with the president's policies. Many Republican senators, legislators and governors want something too. Some leaders of his party deem Bush religiously, fiscally and politically extreme. They too will demand payment of political capital. So far Bush has not shown himself to be a good conciliator. Will fail to satisfy both the religious right and the more moderate wings of his Republican party now in power in the Capitol?

Line 3 implies scandal and impeachment. Line 4 implies overreach and overwhelm. Perhaps line 4 also describes this president's last "prophetic" hurdle. Will he be the first president in history elected under a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction to survive a first "and" a second term without dying in office? Starting in 1840 every president elected under this conjunction in 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, and 1960 has faced death while in office and has not survived. Ronald Reagan became president under the conjunction in 1980 and was shot by an assassin the following year. He barely survived his wounds. No one so far has passed unscathed through a first term to survive a second. For instance, Abraham Lincoln elected under the conjunction in 1860 was reelected to a second term in 1864. He was slain by an assassin shortly after. Franklin.D. Roosevelt successfully ran for a third term under the conjunction in 1940 only to die early on in his fourth term.

I have never sensed a death danger for President Bush from assassination. There is a threat of accidental death through a plane or air accident. However, it has always seemed to me that the strain of the presidency is most likely the source of his brush with death in office. It could come from a sudden and unexpected health crisis. If President Bush takes good care of his heart, he may break the curse of the conjunction.

I hope he will.

Now to the second Nostradamus quatrain using the word "doubtful" as a link. I believe it continues the vision of 6 Q13. The quatrain is the 95th entry from the same Century or "Volume" of Nostradamus' prophetic work: Century 6 Quatrain 95. Many times the prophet continued his account of a vision in a second quatrain placed somewhere out of sequence in the same volume. This prophecy may continue the tale, shining more light on exactly what makes a second term of a Bush presidency such an unmaintainable "burden" that the Congress in "the Capitol" do not want him to rule. The prophecy reads:

Par detracteur calumnié à puis nay.
Quand istront faicts enormes & martiaux:
La moindre part dubieuse à l'aisnay,
Et tost au regne seront faicts partiaux.

By the detractor calumny (lodged) against the younger born.
When enormous and warlike deeds will go on:
The least part doubtful for the elder one,
And soon in the kingdom there will be patrician deeds.

Let us probe this prophecy one line at a time:

By the detractor calumny (lodged) against the younger born...

The "younger born" could be the 43rd president (George W. Bush), son of the 41st president (G. H. W. Bush). Someone levels a slanderous accusation at the son. Perhaps it is an unfair accusation, and G.W. Bush is innocent, but the calumny gains momentum.

...When enormous and warlike deeds will go on...

A detractor accuses G.W. Bush of scandal when he is fully engaged in a great war, much more wide spread and risky than experienced today. The president could be fighting a losing battle of occupation in Iraq sometime after July of 2005. He could rashly widen the war across the Middle East with a joint US-Israeli air strike on Iran to take out its nuclear industries. A military crisis with North Korea and with China over Taiwan could add to this president's overwhelming war burden any time after late July 2005 through September 2007 when Saturn transits Leo--a time of intolerance, partisan mindsets and war. At the darkest hour of war, scandal undermines this president, or worse. He must answer those who question his military blunders, or even question his mental capacity to be president of the US.

...The least part doubtful for the elder one...

History already views the father, the "elder" Bush, as an accomplished unilateralist better able to establish and sustain military and economic alliances. The younger Bush is a unilateralist who in four short years has abandoned treaties and isolated the US from its allies and friends more thoroughly than any modern US president in history. This line may infer that a second term of Bush the "minor" will only sweeten the memory of Bush the "major" as a better president than his son.

...And soon in the kingdom there will be patrician deeds.

The word "partiaux" is a classic Nostradamian double-entendre for the old French "partial"--partisan. It also means "patrician." The line could promise partisan debates in the House and Senate over Bush's capacity to be president. If Bush became a liability to the future of the neo-Conservative revolution he would be "removed" one way or another by his own patrician class--the rising plutocracy that one now sees emerging in America. This is the same power class that would pit one member of the Yale secret society--Skull and Bones--against another in the 2004 election: the Democrat J.F. Kerry against the Republican G.W.Bush.

I have often said that the next president might be Senator Hillary Clinton leading a resurgent and "partisan" Democratic Party. However, let me set forth a few prophetic caveats. The Democratic Party cannot attain the White House and a majority in the House and Senate in 2008 if they do not support their reformers. I would consider it a sign of hope for them to win in 2008 if next month (February 2005) the party leadership should elect a reformer like Howard Dean as Chairman of the party. If they do not, then the emerging "patrician," plutocracy of CEOs may rule this country for eight more years.

Strangely enough, scandal and tragedy may help the patrician aim. If the president were to fall from office in disgrace or die in office, his Vice President, Dick Cheney--his chief adviser for the neo-Conservative plutocracy--would step in as president. Look then to Cheney choosing a Vice President who will become the heir apparent of the neo-Con movement in the White House. Next, a health crisis with Cheney's heart, true or fabricated, could see him step down as president or die in office. Thus Cheney's Vice President, chosen for him by the plutocracy, could successfully run for office and perhaps lengthen their stay in power for another four to eight years.

A less seditious future destiny would see President Bush endure all crises and astrological curses to successfully finish his second term. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that Cheney's plutocratic duty is to step down before the end of Bush's term. Thus he will defer to a younger Vice President who will run against Hillary Clinton in 2008--and if he wins, the heir to G.W. Bush will run again for a second term in 2012.

Horizontal Divider 1

Hogue Prophecy Bulletin
..... (30 March 2005)

The Good, the Bad and the apocalyptically
Ugly potentials of People Power

People power is on the move in Arab lands. Iraq had its election in January and 8 million citizens voted. The Palestinian people voted in a moderate president, Mahmoud Abbas. One could hope that there too a seed of change has taken hold. One where moderate Arabs and Israelis can again find themselves back on the road map towards peace. In Lebanon, a former prime minister is assassinated triggering national outrage and action. Rather than curb the people of Lebanon''s enthusiasm for democracy, the assassins--either members of Hizbullah or their protectors, the Syrian dictatorship--have seen it backfire. Thousands of people marched in the streets of Beirut waving Lebanese national flags in what is now called the "Cedar" revolution. Pressure mounts for Syria to abandon its 25 year occupation of Lebanon, leaving terrorists training camps of Hizbullah in the Bekaa Valley exposed to the "forces of freedom." Free and democratic elections will follow in Lebanon. Even in Syria the facade of dictatorship is cracking. Look also for signs of change in Saudi Arabia, where the first modest local elections were granted--to men only, at least--by the autocratic royal family. Egyptians lobby for free elections under dictatorial president Mubarak.

It would seem that President Bush has found the right excuse for going to war in Iraq, even if it was not the first excuse. Saddam Hussein harboring weapons of mass destruction proved to be either a bald faced lie, or an honest if hasty conclusion based on inept intelligence. But hey! Look at all the calls for Arab democracy it stirred across the region. Anyway, one can admire how hard the president tries to find better reasons "after" his actions. Even his greatest critics in the liberal press have to give him grudging respect for his invasion of Iraq becoming the catalyst (by accident or design) for a wave of democracy passing through the Middle East "because" he "liberated" more than oil from Saddam Hussein: the people of Iraq. Has the president stumbled upon a right course of action over there?

Charles Krauthammer in his recent viewpoint article for TIME magazine guardedly seems to think so. He closes his article "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine" (Time, March 14, 2005), saying, "It [the Bush doctrine] took this marriage of power, will and principle to produce the astonishing developments in the Middle East today. This is not to say that this spring cannot be extinguished. Of course it can. The dictators can strike back, and we may flinch in defense of those they strike. History has yet to yield a verdict on the final outcome. But it has yielded one unmistakable verdict thus far: the idea that Arabs are not fit for or inclined toward freedom--the underlying assumption of those who denounced riduculed and otherwise opposed the democracy project--is wrong. Embarrassingly, scandalously, blessedly wrong."

There is a photograph dominating the page of Krauthammer's article of an Iraqi citizen leaving the polls after voting. To me, this picture may reveal the seeds of obvious good, the bad and the potentially uglier side of people power that Krauthammer's hopeful article overlooked. One's eye naturally seeks the central theme of the photo taken by Franco Pagetti: a delicate woman's hand with her index finger dyed purple indicating her vote had been cast. Her be-purpled hand proudly cradles a paper record of her ballot. This is the "good." She walks down a peaceful street. US security though not shown in the picture has been there to see to it her chance to vote for self-government has happened. That she is a woman in an Islamic country who has voted is a sign of further "good" as is her proud smile.

What draws one's eye first to purple feminine finger and clutched white ballot is the stark contrast of the woman's costume. Except for her face, she is cloaked and hooded from head to toe in a black chador.

Is this a sign of the "bad" that could come from people power in the Middle East? It may very well be that an ugly outcome for the region will result "because" democracy and freedom to vote reigns. The woman wears the shador of the Shia sect of Islam. She represents 60 percent of the Iraqi population that could use their freedom of vote to choose a government rooted in an undemocratic understanding of Islamic Sharia law of the Iraqi Ayatollahs. Her vote in late January could be the first unintended step towards a "democratically" elected Iraq that eventually denies her vote and all women the vote.

Western democratic leaders and journalists continue to harbor a historic and simplistic view of what Arab people desire. They praise the tens of thousands of Lebanese chanting for free elections and the end of Syrian occupation, but ignore the million pro-Syrian demonstrators in the same streets a few days later who want to vote for a continued presence of Syria in Lebanon. Give these people a free election, and you may see a return to the civil war that Syria exploited to occupy Lebanon--again. Back in the mid-1990s the Algerian military junta bent to pressure from the US and other Western leaders and granted their people free elections--this was the "good" of democracy in action. The party of the Islamic Fundamentalists won by a landslide--this was the "bad" side of people power. Then it got "ugly." The junta declared the election illegal and triggered a bloody civil war that has seen over 100,000 killed to date.

Since the mid-1980s, I have been interpreting the prophecies of Nostradamus concerning a spread of radicalism from Iran westwards across the Middle East caused by a "black one"--a black robed Ayatollah of the Shia sect. It may very well be that the Bush Doctrine's good but simplistic encouragement of democracy will cause this "bad."

Now let's consider the "ugly" aspects of people power. First off, if the people are not aware that they are programmed to behave and borrow belief systems from birth onwards as there own, then they tend to decide collectively as a mob rather than a group of conscious individuals. Democracy is not overtaking the Arab world. It is a variation of the same illusion harbored by people in the West--that we have attained to democracy, as such. What actually exists in our current era is "Mobocracy." Rule by mob majority vote.

There is vast historical evidence that human misery is primarily caused by uninformed people surrendering their power to those who are the least emotionally and spiritually qualified to wield it. If you get the largest mob to vote a certain way, you win. The signs of living under Mobocracy rule are these: Any fool can propagate himself with simplistic bromides to obtain power. Any idiot has the right to vote if he reaches a specific age. In a Mobocracy, the candidates and those who vote them in need not prove their merit in wisdom or political literacy to either chose leaders or prove they have enough consciousness and wisdom to wield power over others.

The "good" in the democratic dream of freedom will continue to corrupt and darken into the "bad" reality of Mobocracy and bring about the "ugliness" of civil unrest and war as long as we keep denying that true democracy has yet appeared anywhere in this world--not even in the US. Much more work must be done, and much more history will pass before that day arrives.

Yet, for argument's sake, let us pose today that democracy should spread across the Middle East and it succeeds in bringing peace to the region, even if it is Mob-ocratic. Let us even predict for argument's sake that Arabs and Israelis can establish peaceful co-existence under beautiful and binding peace treaties. There are prophetic indications that all political and social good can be undermined by all that is bad and ugly about a people's power to over drain the water tables of the Middle East with their runaway population explosion.

If we do not address this darker side of people power then the "good" of democracy unconsciously spreading over the Middle East will bring the "bad" of further population explosions and wasteful consumerism that will lead to an "ugly" Armageddon fought over water, and not religion or race.

I interpreted quotes and prophecies about this matter back in 1994 in "Millennium Book of Prophecy":

BEGINNING OF QUOTE (from 1994)-----------

"Before the twenty-first century, the struggle over limited and threatened water resources could sunder already fragile ties among regional states and lead to unprecedented upheaval within the [Middle East]." So says a report written in 1988 by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. In a projected greenhouse future, the Nile, Euphrates and Jordan rivers may dry up. Water disputes in the Middle East are as old as the pyramids, but the population explosion and the strain of ambitious agricultural and industrial projects are not. Neither is the growing nuclear and chemical weapons capability of Israel and its Arab neighbors.

American Professor Tom Naff, head of a recent study of Middle East river basins, believes Israel is using its might as "the local superpower" to draw "water as it needs and from wherever it can get it." Naff discovered that Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank use four times as much water as the Palestinians. He warns that unless these well-armed and dangerous nations of a fragile desert ecosystem "act fairly quickly and get some [water] agreements in place, conflict will be the result. Crisis is [already] here."

In his "State of the World 1989" report on enhancing global security, Michael Renner, a senior researcher for the Worldwatch Institute, said that current disputes over water resources are "rapidly becoming a prominent source of international tension."

According to Renner, 40 percent of the world's 5.8 billion people depend on 214 major river systems shared by two or more countries for irrigation, hydropower, or just a life-sustaining drink.

"The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile, not politics," warned Butros Butros-Ghali (the former Secretary General of the United Nations) in 1985 when he was Egypt's Foreign Minister.

In nearly a dozen river regions of the Earth, nations disputing water diversion or reduced water flow, or suffering the salinization of streams and industrial pollution by their neighbors, could go to war. The most sensitive of these regions being the political and religious tinderbox of the Middle East.

-- Libya's Muammar Qaddafi has begun a $24-billion project of man-made rivers to pump deep ground water beneath the Sahara desert for his desiccating croplands on the Mediterranean. This water resource is unreplenishable and will most likely run out shortly after the project is finished early in the twenty-first century.

-- Both Israel and Jordan use their known water reserves 15 percent faster every year. Forty percent of Israel's water supply comes from underground aquifers beneath the occupied West Bank. Amman is pessimistic about the outcome of negotiations with Jerusalem over the Jordan River. A Western diplomat in the regions says, "Water is like a gun to the Israelis' heads, and this particular problem may be unsolvable."

-- Ethiopia is studying ways to harness the headwaters of the Blue Nile. Egyptian politicians break out in a cold sweat about it. Already, Ethiopia and the Sudan are demanding greater volume from the only life-giving river that irrigates the crops and quenches the thirst of over sixty million Egyptians. Egypt nearly shut down the Aswan High Dam in the late 1980s because of low water levels. If the Nile is tapped the Ethiopians will draw 20 percent of Egypt's water supply. "Egypt will go to war to protect its Nile waters, if it has to. There's absolutely no doubt about it," declares a Western diplomat in Cairo.

-- Turkey's ambitious Ataturk dam project might greatly diminish water flow down the Euphrates. Syrian cotton farmers could see their ration cut by 40 percent, and the rice, wheat and fruit crops of Iraq could experience a cut of 80 to 90 percent. In 1990 a Syrian farmer standing before a string of stagnant pools - all that remained of the Euphrates - said, [the Turks] have told us the water will come back. But maybe it won't. We are desperate and angry."

"The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East [those destined to fight Israel in the battle of Armageddon]. "

St. John of Patmos ( a.d. 81-96), Rev 16:12

"Mars, Mercury and the Moon in conjunction [on 29 March 1998, and again at the turn of the millennium around 2 July and 1 August 2000]. Toward the South [the Southern bloc?], there will be great drought....Both Corinth [Greece] and Ephesus [Turkey] will then be in a troubled state."

Nostradamus (1555), C3 Q3

"In the year Saturn and Mars are equally fiery [1997 or 1998 and several more times between 2000 and 2030], the air is very dry, a long meteor [missile?]. From hidden fires a great place burns with heat. Little rain, hot wind, wars and raids."

Nostradamus (1555), C4 Q 67

"Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind."

St. John of Patmos ( a.d. 81-96), Rev 9:14-15

------------END OF QUOTE (from 1994)

Little has changed in water use in the Middle Eastern region in 11 years. Qaddafi continues to drain off an unreplenishable water source in Libya. The stress on the Nile has doubled. There is still no clear plan proffered by Israelis and Arabs to solve the water rights issue of the West Bank. The good news is, that Syrian farmer and his family did see the Euphrates River fill again with water. However, the danger remains ever more possible that it will run dry again in the near future. A critical mass of overpopulation and overuse added to climate change all conspire to create a mega-drought that turns off the water tap of the Euphrates, the Nile and the River Jordan. When that happens, all the best democracy and peace treaties in the world will not stop Armageddon waged over water rights.

That is why the Bush Doctrine must augment its strategic and political vision for the Middle East with more than mere bromides of freedom being a good thing solely by itself. Freedom, if spread unwisely and unconsciously, could trigger unplanned for disasters. If the Bush Doctrine promotes democracy it should also promote population control and a long-term policy of intelligent and sustainable economic growth. Good people of a long and suffering region, like that woman with her ballot record clutched in purple fingered and hopeful hand, ought to enjoy the good, and not the bad and apocalyptically ugly potentials of democracy