Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
7.30 Report -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) Thank you, John. Before we

go, a brief recap of our top

stories. President Bush has

announceed a new war plan, and

extra troops for Iraq, hoping

to end the country's sectarian violence. And firefighters will

stay all night at a blaze

alongside the Federal Highway

at Lake George. Helicopters

contained the fire this

afternoon, but it's still

flaring. That's ABC News. Stay

with us now for the 7.30 Report

coming up next. Thanks for your company. Goodnight. Closed Captions by CSI

The new strategy I outline

tonight will change America's

course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against

terror. Tonight - exit

strategy, or no way out - the

boldest political gamble of George W. Bush's

presidency. The question going

forward is not so much what the

Americans do, but whether they

put in 20,000 troops more or

20,000 troops less, it's what

do the Iraqis do. And, from

page to stage, the transformation of the

Australian literary classic,

Snugglepot and Cuddlepie. The

characters are fantastic,

because they're incredibly Australian. It couldn't have been done anywhere else in the

world. CC

Welcome to the program, I'm

Ali Moore. Almost four years

after sending troops into

Baghdad and after more than

3,000 US military deaths,

George W. Bush has delivered

his long-awaited strategy on

Iraq. And the line is

escalate, not exit. In a

national televised address the

declared he would send more

than 20,000 new troops into

combat, deploying the majority

in and around the Iraqi capital

where much of the bloody

insurgency is centred. He also

announced another bold goal -

for Iraq to resume control of

its own security by November.

But there was no mention of a

Plan B if they fail to achieve

this. The new strategy is in

defiance of a hostile Congress

and criticism from within the

Republican Party and the

military top brass. And it

comes despite the mid-term

congressional elections in

November that will widely seen

as a public backlash against the administration's Iraq

policy. The question now is

will the change of course bring

America any closer to success?

Shortly I'll be talking to a

defence analyst in Washington,

but first this report from our

North America correspondent,

Tracy Bowden. In what is

considered one of the most

important speeches of his

presidency, George W. Bush made

it clear - he may have steered

away from the term " stay the

course" , but he's still

focussed on victory in

Iraq. The new strategy I

outline tonight will change

America's course in Iraq and

help us succeed in the fight

against terror. He believes

he's doing the right thing now.

He's deeply disappointed and

discouraged by the lack of

progress, even acknowledges

apparently now the failures

that have been made, but is

still determined to stick with

it and find a way to victory.

This is all about George W.

Bush. The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American

people, and it is unacceptable

to me. As widely predicted

ahead of the speech, the new

strategy calls for extra US

troops in Iraq. 21,500 more at

a cost of more than $7 billion.

Also a $1 billion economic

reconstruction program. It's

the political the dimension

that is tearing the country

apart, and there is no military

solution unless the Iraqis are

much more active than they've

been to date. Defence analyst

Anthony Cordesman believes the critical part of the strategy

is not so much the extra

troops, but the deal the has

struck with Iraqi Prime

Minister, Nouri

al-Maliki. 20,000 more men and

women can't by themselves win

in a city of more than five

million people and they

certainly can't hold, you can't

occupy space, you can't keep

insurgents and militias from reinfiltrating. You have to

have this coupled to the

presence of Iraqi forces. They

have to be the ones who hold.

If the Iraqi Government does

not follow through on its

promises it will lose the

support of the American people,

and it will lose the support of

the Iraqi people. Now is the

time to act. The new strategy

calls for greater involvement

by Iraqi troops who will take

the lead in a final push to

quell the insurgency and it

sets a November deadline for

the country to resume control

of its own security. The plan

also lays out a series of

benchmarks for the Iraqi

Government aimed at improving

political and economic

stability. These include regional elections and

introducing a plan to spread

oil revenue throughout the

country. There are a lot of

members of the public and many

members of Congress

increasingly Republican members

of the Congress who are very

sceptical of this package

having any success, certainly

anymore success than previous

packages have had. Analyst

Thomas Mann from the Brookings Institution believes the plan might have made a difference at

the start of the war, but not

now. All this time has passed,

almost four years and it can't

be undone with these kind of

incremental increases in troops and additional political

pressure. It's too late. My

fellow citizens, at this hour

American and coalition forces

are in the early stages of

military operations to disarm

Iraq, to free its people and to

defend the world from grave

danger. That was March 2003,

and as the troops rolled into

Baghdad the hope was that it

was going to be quick and

clean. Just a couple of months later the ultimate photo

opportunity on board the USS

Abraham linkon as the declared

the combat phase of the mission

over. Major combat operations

in Iraq have ended and the

battle of Iraq the United

States and our allies have



As the conflict stretched from

months into years, the

sectarian violence worsened.

The US military jets moved into

the thousands and the's

approval rating slumped. But

the commander-in-chief stood

firm. We will succeed in Iraq.

We're carrying out a decision

that has already been made and

will not change. Iraq will be

a free, independent country and

America and the Middle East

will be safer because of it.

By the end of last year after

the Republicans took a thumping

in the mid-term elections, as

Americans expressed their

disapproval at the handling of

the war, the accepted the need

to find a new way forward. And

tonight he also accepted responsibility for mistakes

made during the conflict. Our

past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal

reasons. There were not enough

Iraqi and American troops to

secure neighbourhoods that had

been cleared of terrorists and

insurgents and there were too

many restrictions on the troops

we did have. There is a sense out there of nothing seems to

have worked so far, why should

the public have any faith that

there is really an answer, that

victory is possible? Well,

we're talking about some process where instant success

was never likely. The question

is can the admit that? Can he

go from a broad speech to the

kind of follow-up that will

convince the Congress and the

American people not that

there's any certainty of

success, but enough of a

reasonable prospect to take the

risks? Politically the also has

a battle on his hand. The

Democrats who now control both

Houses of Congress are opposed

to any increase in troops and

are calling for a vote before

Congress prior to any

escalation of the conflict. The

Iraqis must understand that

they alone can lead their

nation to freedom, they alone

must meet the challenges that

lie ahead and they must know

that every time they call 911

we are not going to send 20,000

more American soldiers. In the

end, is it the fact that the decider will still

decide? Listen, a determined in

the last two years of his

presidency who doesn't care

about his political standing in

the public, who doesn't care

about his party's future stake

s can hold to his policy and

probably avoid having funds cut

off, but he and his party will

pay a heavy price. And the has

foreshadowed more grim news out

of Iraq in the coming year. The

terrorists and insurgents in

Iraq are without conscience and

they will make the year ahead

bloody and violent. Even if

our new strategy works exactly

as planned, deadly acts of

violence will continue and... Now George W. Bush has

to sell the plan not just to Congress but to the American

people, convincing them that

this new way forward is worth

the cost, not just in money,

but in lives. This is either

his opportunity to be

successful in historical terms,

or to be seen as a failed

president having led a failed

presidency. That is important.

Will we know next month? No.

Will we know from the

congressional action? Probably

not. Will the course of the

fighting and the political

facts on the ground in Iraq

between now and December

determine the outcome? The

answer to that is probably yes.

Tracy Bowden with that report.

Watching empts closely in

Washington was Dr James

Carafano a defence analyst at

the public Policy Research Institute The Heritage

Foundation and I spoke to him

shortly after the's address.

James Carafano, welcome to the program. It's good to be with

you. If this was President

Bush's last roll of the dice on

Iraq has he delivered on paper?

And I guess far more

importantly, can he deliver on

the ground? Well, I thought it

was a very good speech. I

thought he articulated well

what he plans on doing. If I

would falter for anything there

wasn't really much of a

discussion of the risk. The's

strategy is very much

predicated on the fact that he

expects that the Iraqi national

reconciliation process to move

forward and he expects the

Iraqis to do the heavy lifting

in terms of providing security

for Baghdad. Even if the

United States does everything

right in terms of employing the forces, helping out with

economic aid, if the Iraqi

political will isn't there and

the Iraqi security forces don't

improve and if the Iraqi police

force isn't substantially restructured - something that

wasn't even mentioned in the speech - it could still not

woncht it's a workable strategy

but it does come with a significant amount of risk.

Indeed it seemed to be a

change of rhetoric. The

emphasis is very much on the

role of the Iraqis, the

responsibility of the Iraqis. Do you believe that Prime

Minister Maliki can now

deliver? Has anything changed from prior to this

speech? Well, I don't think

it's fair to call it a change

of rhetoric. I think this is probably one of the

misinterpret - the wrong

headedness of the debate.

People say well, 20,000 troops

aren't enough to secure Baghdad

there aren't enough to make a

difference. That's absolutely

right. If you listen carefully

to the's statement those 20,000

troops are really going to be

backboning the Iraqis. It's

not enough but if the Iraqis

don't stand up, it's not going

to happen. What has changed for

Prime Minister Maliki if he's

not been able to succeed to

date, what makes the confident,

what makes others confident

that he will succeed now? I

think it is risky but on the

other hand this is a government

only in place for six months.

This is a government trying to

find its foothold and this is a

series of moving relationships.

Everybody's kind of looking and

seeing what's in the best case.

You've got even within the Shi'ia community, for example,

it's not unified, there are

Shi'ia attacking Shi'ia. There

are some groups that want to

see the country split apart and

get their fair share. Some

want the whole thing, some

dependent on Syria and Iran.

Some of the Shi'ia groups are

combatting. It's a very

volatile political mix. If

you're asking can I guarantee

they're going to get right,

absolutely not. It's a dicey

mix. That's why I said there

is sufficient risk. President

Bush has made it sure the US

commitment to Iraq is not

open-ended. He says if the

Iraqi Government does not follow through on its promises

it will lose the support of the

American people. What does

that mean? In the same breath

it's very clear the US will not

walk away. It seems to be a

threat, but a hollow one? It is

important to end the notion of

Iraq dependency. One of the

clear criticisms I think of

this strategy is the fact that,

you know, if Iraqis think that

Americans are always going to

be there there's no incentive

to stay forward. If you

withdraw the forces and you

don't really give them a chance

to do that you might fail as

well. So the Democrat rhetoric

of a phased withdrawal that's

equally as risky and

problematic as the's strategy.

There is no single strategy

which is going to be a silver bullet or guarantee success

because again much of this is

heavily dependent on what the

Iraqis do. You talk about the

risks and the himself posed the

question today about why this

plan should succeed when

previous ones haven't. The

polls in the US are clearly

showing that the public is not

in favour of more troops. Do

you think the today sold his

argument? Oh of course not. I

think anybody who thought that

there was going to be a

bipartisan support for any

policy is out to lunch. There

is no American consensus on this. I don't think there's anything the could have said,

any course of action he could

have picked which would have

gained broad consensus. The is

the commander-in-chief. He directs the armed forces. If

you think back to Vietnam in

1968 American popular opinion

turned significantly against

the war but yet the United

States stayed in Vietnam until

1973. We didn't cut off

support for Vietnam until 1975

and quite frankly if the hadn't

been impeached as a result of

the Watergate scandal and you

didn't have an ineffectual unelected president in place

the US could have continued to

provide support. The poll

numbers could be in the single

digits and the can execute the

strategy because that's the way

our system is designed and

that's the way our democracy

operates. James Carafano, is

there now an end game? We have

a deadline of November for Iraq

to take control of most of the

provinces, but is there an end

game in sight? This is not a

sporting event where you blow a

whistle and everything is over.

I mean, it's a competition

between two determined sides

and in this case multiple

determined sides and the enemy

always gets a vote. The enemy

that's coming through Syria,

coming through Iran, the enemy

funneled in through al-Qaeda

and opposition forces within

the country. They're all going

to do something as well. So I

think the notion that somehow

I'm going to do this and you're

not imposing your will on an

inanimate object. An end game

is not the right motion here.

The question is this, this is

key, can you stand up an Iraqi

government that has the broad

support to sustain security

forces that can do that. This

is a strategy that may work,

but again, it has an enormous

amount of risk. The enemy, for

example, could just lay down

and go to ground and wait for

the American forces to ramp

back down and then come up

again. The question going

forward is not so much what the

Americans do, whether they put

in 20,000 troops more or 20,000

troops less, it's what do the

Iraqis do? What do they do in

terms of moving the political

reconciliation process forward?

What do they do in terms of standing up and taking responsibility for the country?

The key thing for the US is

standing up those Iraqi

security forces, reforming the

police, pushing the political

process forward? Those are the

things, not necessarily more

troops or less troops per se,

that will make the

difference. James Carafano,

thanks for joining us. Thanks

for having me. It takes its

roots from African American

spirituals and gospel a

cappella but the rise and rise

of contemporary Christian rock

has catapulted so-called faith music into the mainstream

charts. In Australia, the band

of the moment is the

Planetshakers, named after the

fastest growing Christian youth

movement in the country -

shaking the planet. Its

members are trying to do just

that, from a praise pit rather

than a mosh pit. Tracee

Hutchison reports.

SONG: # Every day I walk with you #

There's lots of different ways

to worship and I don't have a

problem with any, but this is

how I do it and this is how I

enjoy it. Welcome to the

modern church where the house

of God is a rock concert and

his teachings are wrapped up in

a slick sophisticated package.

There's the band , the music

videos, the DVDs, the website,

there's even a My Space page

and an annual conference for

Christian youth that attracts

over 20,000 young Australians

each year. I believe that the

church of God should be the greatest party on the

planet. These are the

Planetshakers, and the man with

the message is Assemblies of God pastor, Russell

Evans. Shake the planet. We're

here not just to be local,

we're here to be global and we can have the ability to influence the whole

planet. Shaking the planet with

a mix of social justice and the

scriptures is what the pr

vision is all about. I believe

that God has made us with a

purpose and the difference is

helping people find their

purpose. To his youthful

constituents Pastor Evans is

almost the main attraction.

He's relaxed and accessible,

and it works. Having a good

time? Awesome time, great

time. How are you doing?

Awesome. I do a lot of youth

work within the church so the

empowerment that I've seen is

pretty much me helping younger

girls. I think we all have our

experiences in life and I've

had my own experiences where

I've needed God, I've needed

something. Ash Gazal turned to

the church after a death in the

family. I think for me seeing

the way that my life has been

changed and seeing the

fulfilment that I get, but then

coming together like this and

seeing other younger people go

through the same thing. For

me, that's where it pays

off. Daniel Flynn if grew up

with Christian parents and came to Planetshakers with

friends. I find it real. You

know, there's not a lot of

Christian talk that goes over

your head. I can stay awake

and get into it. This is the

greatest hour for the church.

This is an awesome, awesome day

for God's church. While God

looms large in the lives of

these young people, it's partnerships with organisations

like World Vision that give

practical outcomes to their

involvement. Last year's

conference resulted in 1,000

new child sponsorships, a

target organisers hope will be

met again this year. Have you

sponsored a child? I have, I've

gone in with a couple of

friends of mine and we've

sponsored a little girl in

India. I've sponsored a child

in the past, but it's not just

about World Vision, it's about

social justice. There are so

many ways that we can be a

difference in our world. It's

not just World Vision, although

that is a fantastic cause and a

lot of my friends do support

that. What I think is occurring

is a real struggle for a dream

with young people. I mean, the

fact that Planetshakers' young

people are there, positive

about the world and their faith

rather than doing ecstasy and

doing pills, is great. World Vision CEO Reverend Tim

Costello sees a strong link with Planetshakers and the

global Make Poverty History

campaign. It's really about

awareness, so this generation

give me great hope. They have

both the moral commitment and

the financial means to make

poverty history. And while

rock stars Bono and Bob Geldof

turn music into a global

political message, Pastor Evans

is strictly by God's book.

Despite having links of his own

to Australian politics as the

son of Family First founder and Pentecostal pastor Andrew

Evans. How much of Family

First is in Planetshakers? Absolutely none.

I'm not political. My idea is

to empower young people. If

you want to see positive change

in your community then you need

to be that change, do you know

what I mean? I think my

generation, babyboomers and

older have really failed. I

think we actually didn't see

with moral clarity what this

next generation sees. Each day

to wake up and have an attitude

that I'm going to make a

difference just to someone

today, whether it's a smile,

whether it's sponsoring a

child. Tracee Hutchison

reporting there, and the

Planetshakers conference hits

Brisbane next week. Most

Australians have grown up with

the tales of Snugglepot and Cuddlepie, Little Ragged

Blossom and the big, bad

banksia men, the whimsical bush

characters created by author

and illustrator May Gibbs.

Gibbs' books have been adapted

over the years for children's

shows and even a ball yay and

now in the most ambitious

theatrical transformation yet a

major stage musical. Tomorrow

night almost 130 years to the

day after May Gibbs' birth ,

the new musical of Snugglepot

and Cuddlepie premieres at the

Sydney festival before

travelling to Perth and

Adelaide. Rebecca Baillie


The characters are fantastic,

because they're incredibly Australian, they couldn't have

been done anywhere else in the

world. It's a literary classic

which has captivated

generations of Australians for

nearly 90 years. I grew up with

May Gibbs, with the stories.

It's got these roots which go

so deep down into our own

psyches. The adventures of Snugglepot and Cuddlepie by May

Gibbs tells of who little

gumnuts who go on a quest to

see the big smoke and the

humans who are are destroying

their bushland. With modern

themes, including the destruction of the environment,

the books are now being

transformed into a musical for

kids both young and old. And

the design and everything is so

fantastic, it's so colourful.

It's like a playground on

stage, it really is. Not to

mention we're full body nude

suits with little gum leaves

covering our Barbie doll bits.

Cute little gum bums. Real

red shiny bums! Who'll look

after us? I'll look after you, and you look after

me. Grown-ups Tim Richards and

Darren Gilshenan star in the title roles. Both grew up with

the books, and have based their

characterisation of Snugglepot

and Cuddlepie on observing

their own 4-year-old

boys. We'll be careful. Here

we go. It's the energy I guess

that I've got from them.

Definitely and just the way

they tend to move from a lower

point and they tend to topple

over a bit more than we do and

all that's been fun to play

with, sort of carrying that

over onto stage. While Tim Richards and Darren Gilshenan

are inspired by their children,

the gumnuts' creator May Gibbs

took her inspiration from

Australia's unique flora and

fauna. If we walked out in the

bush I noticed all the little

flowers. I used to say, "This

is such and such a thing and

that is something else, and

give them names," and that's

how I started telling the

stories. She first drew the

Gumnut Babies on post cards for

soldiers serving in World War

I. She was an iconic figure in

many ways. She was an artist

first and foremost and drawing

was her life, but it wasn't

until later that she actually started writing stories about

the little characters that

she'd invented. Rick Pool

manages the museum Nutcote, May Gibbs' Sydney Harbour-front

house where the author created

Snugglepot and Cuddlepie. He

welcomes the musical adaptation

as a novel way to expose May

Gibbs' works to another generation. Snugglepot and

Cuddlepie has never been out of

print as such. I suppose the critical measure today is

they're all print media.?

there's been no animation, for

example, that is a concern. So

we need to look at keeping it

in the public eye. One of

Australia's most celebrated

theatre directors, Neil

Armfield is responsible for

translating May Gibbs' vision

to the stage. He, like

countless Australians, grew up

in fear of Gibbs' big bad

banksia men who try to destroy

the innocent gumnuts. I

remember we used to go on

holidays down the South Coast

into the bush and that sense of

lurking danger in the

Australian bush had somehow

found its sort of nestled into

your subconscious because of

May Gibbs' banksia men. When I

said to a lot of people this

was what I was doing, a lot of

them hid because there's a bit

of their mind relatively

terrified of the banksia men.

SONG: # Right is wrong and

wrong is right #

Ironically the adaptation has

been written by a New

Zealand-born Australian who

didn't read the books until he

was an adult. The sat yierist

John Clarke has cast a keen

contemporary eye over May

Gibbs' early 20th century

themes ensuring this musical

appeals to all ages. We'll

tell them we run the bush now.

Bush Administration. Yeah! Nup,

wouldn't work. Hopefully it's a

little bit about learning how

to watch a show for some of the

younger kid, but there needs to

be amusing things in it for

people of my age and some old

army gags for my parents.

John's satire always has a

wonderful kind of deadpan

innocence about it itself.

Like that's the kind of source

of his humour, I think, is

looking at what's going on in the world through almost a

child's eyes. The anticipation

is growing ahead of tomorrow's

opening night when many

Australians will be watching

closely to ensure May Gibbs'

much-loved gumnuts are treated

with respect. What do you

think May Gibbs would have

thought? Well, that's a very

interesting question. May was

very jealous of her own work

and didn't like anyone

interfering with it at all, so

from that perspective perhaps

she wouldn't be too happy. But

then again, I think she would

be delighted to know that her

work is still being seen.

Rebecca Baillie reporting.

And that's the program for

tonight. We'll be back at the

same time tomorrow. But for

now, goodnight.

Closed Captions by CSI.

A loved husband and father goes missing. His wife is frantic to find him. I gotta get to him, we gotta find him. A psychic finds herself as a go-between, relaying clues she believes come from the man who's gone missing. It's fickle, it's fickle. Will this clue help police solve the mysterious disappearance?

I could see the sincerity in her face that she believed what she was telling me.

He wants to be found. THEME MUSIC March 1, 1997 in the small town of Sharpsville, Pennsylvania. Local chef Darryl Cozart headed out on Saturday night after work.

He hasn't returned home to his wife Jeannette and their two small children. She knows something's not right. He told me he was gonna go to see some friends at a bar, which was very unusual for him. Darryl didn't usually go hang out with friends, he was really a family man. On Sunday when Darryl still hasn't returned home, Jeannette Cozart reports him missing to the police. To them it's just a missing person case. It's not uncommon for a spouse to report somebody missing who maybe run off with some friends to get away for a few days. I knew something had to have happened to him for him not to contact me and not to let us know he's OK. Usually within 48 hours the person appears back at home

and maybe has to eat a little crow or has some patching up to do at home, but they always come back. They pretty much just told me, "Don't worry, he's probably just on a drinking binge." And I'm like, "No. This is not my husband. "He didn't do those kind of things. He went to work, he came home.

"This is not what he did." Police weren't aware of any problems at home or what would make him run off. They told me that there would be 72 hours, of course, before they could list him as a missing persons.