Obama tells the Muslim world "U.S. is not your enemy"

There was an article today by Paul Schemm, Associated Press, about President Obama addressing the Muslim world. Below is a copy of that article.


CAIRO, Egypt – President Barack Obama chose an Arabic-language satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message Tuesday to the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy."
The interview taped Monday underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration.
The president expressed an intention to engage the Middle East immediately and his new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, was expected to arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel, which is privately owned by a Saudi businessman.
Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but "that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."
During his presidency, former President George W. Bush gave several interviews to Al-Arabiya but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.
Al-Arabiya has scored interviews with top U.S. officials in the past, including Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The channel is seen by some in Washington as more balanced in its coverage than its Qatar-funded rival Al-Jazeera, which the previous White House administration complained had an anti-American bias.
Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world "based on mutual respect and mutual interest." He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives.
The new president said he felt it was important to "get engaged right away" in the Middle East and had directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties involved." His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.
The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that both Israel and the Palestinians have hard choices to make.
"I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said, calling for a Palestinian state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with neighboring countries.
On Tuesday, Gaza's fragile truce was threatened when a bomb detonated by Palestinian militants exploded next to an Israeli army patrol along the border with Gaza, killing one soldier and wounding three.
Obama also said that recent statements and messages issued by the al-Qaida terror network suggest they do not know how to deal with his new approach.
"They seem nervous," he told the interviewer. "What that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt."
In his latest message on Jan. 14, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden said Obama had been left with a "heavy inheritance" of Bush's wars.
Shortly after the election, the network's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri used a demeaning racial term for a black American who does the bidding of whites to describe Obama.
The message suggested the terror network was worried Obama could undermine its rallying cry that the U.S. is an enemy oppressor.

Now, I have some thoughts on this article. First, I have no problem with the message that he delivered. In order to have peace in the Middle East, it is important that all parties are able to communicate with each other. But I have a major problem with the statement about former President Bush: "but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world."

Excuse me, but I believe that 9/11 launched those wars. It was Muslim terrorists that attacked us to begin with. It was Muslim countries that harbored those terrorists. If the other Muslim countries didn't want us launching any wars to find these terrorists, then why didn't they do it themselves? And the war in Iraq? Maybe it was started for the wrong reason (WMD's anyone?), but it culminated in the deposing of a sadistic tyrannical despot who murdered thousands of his own Muslim people. So why exactly is there a backlash against the U.S.? It seems to me that after 9/11, there was a backlash against the Muslim world that could have been turned around easily if the Muslim world had been quick to police themselves first.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not advocating hate or racial prejudice against the Muslim people. God says to love your neighbors and I believe that means everybody; Muslim, Jewish and Christian alike. I won't get into the religious aspect of this, just suffice it to say that all this hatred is not what God wants. But I take offense at the liberal slant of the news that wants to throw all the country's ills back on President Bush. Yes, he made mistakes, just as President Obama will too. But stop kicking President Bush for doing what he had to do in a difficult time. Would the liberals have been happy if we had all sat around debating the thing to death after 9/11? The last time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, we didn't debate that either. We went straight to war. That was a different type of war, so it was more clear cut than guerrilla terrorist tactics.

I hope that President Obama can disfuse the hard feelings and bring some kind of peace to the Middle East without jeopardizing our relationship with Israel. But remember, these hard feelings were brought about by the Muslim terrorists attacking us, NOT by President Bush invading Iraq or Afghanistan.

Genealogy Break Throughs

Genealogy has been a hobby of mine for about 35 years. It has given me the opportunity to incorporate a love of history with a love of family. My favorite movies and TV series were always westerns and I felt like I should have been born during that time. But of course, it was a good thing I wasn't because I like my creature comforts and technology way too much. (See, God was definitely looking out for me).

Anyway, as I was saying, genealogy gave me the ability to see my ancestors during a period of time that I would have at least wanted to visit. Over the years I have researched both my family and my husband's. His was actually easier to do as most of his family had resided here in Texas for many, many years. Texas is a big state but we could still make short trips to the various different counties a whole lot easier than to Nebraska or New York or England.

The internet has really opened up the research avenues for me. Family Search has uploaded images of the Texas Death Certificates for 1900-1976 and I decided to take advantage of that. I ran a report from my genealogy program to show everyone who died in Texas during that time period and I have been locating the death certificates and copying them to my hard drive. Death certificates can give you so much information, particularly names of parents. Which brings me to my breakthrough.

Dr. Charles Edward Hall and his wife Mabel Ora Stuart, my husband's great-grandparents, are buried in Lindale, Texas. Her parents, William Stuart and Laura Hill (Fatherree) Stuart are buried next to them. The headstones show birth and death dates for both William and Laura and the family Bible showed William as being born in Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee. That had been the extent of the knowledge I have been able to gather on William Stuart.

While tracing down death certificates for a son of a son of a collateral line, I was taken to Rains County in Texas, where the death occurred. As I have found the death certificates, I have also checked each county to see if the cemeteries have been transcribed online (some have, some haven't yet). So while looking through one of the Rains County Genealogy web pages, I came across a 1913 transcribed newspaper article that said "Herbert Stuart from Lindale was here visiting his uncle S.J. Stuart earlier this week."

That stopped me in my tracks. Herbert Stuart was Mable Ora's brother, a son of William Stuart, and living in Lindale. This uncle S.J. Stuart was obviously a brother to William. A little more research in Rains County disclosed this to be Stephen James Stuart, a prominent settler to Rains County from Tennessee. Now with two children's names as a point of reference, I was able to find the right Stuart household in the 1850 census of Sumner County, Tennesse, which showed their mother Clarissa as a widow. Checking the online marriage transcriptions for Sumner County, I found a Clarissa Mitchenor married to a James Stuart. I also found the Texas death certificate for Stephen James Stuart that listed his parents as James and Clarissa. A death certificate for William (who died in 1902) has never been found.

So by following the death certificates on more current family way down through a collateral line, it took my direct line another generation back. That's what I love about genealogy. You never know when or where you will find that piece of elusive information that fits your puzzle.