Nearly three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, some two million documents and tape recordings seized during Operation Iraqi Freedom remain largely untranslated, unanalyzed and unavailable to the American public. These items appear to contain information relevant to the ongoing debate over the former dictator's terror ties, including some that describe in detail how Saddam trained thousands of Islamic radicals in the waning years of his regime. Stephen Hayes broke this story for The Weekly Standard. He joins me now from Washington.

Welcome, Steve.

Hayes: Hi, Paul.

Gigot: What do you think--why should we care about these documents? And what do you expect to learn if they are uncovered?

Hayes: Well, I would say we should care about them both for historical reasons and, as you point out, for reasons that might help us with the people, the very people we're fighting in Iraq today. There are lists, to give you one example, of Iraqi intelligence operatives who operated during Saddam Hussein's regime both inside and outside of Iraq. Those are likely the same people that U.S. forces are fighting on the ground in Iraq today. And if we knew, for instance, who these people trained with back in Iraq in 2002, we might have a better idea how they've set up their cells in Iraq in 2006. That's one of the main reasons.

Gigot: Steve, is it possible that we could learn whether or not Saddam actually was doing business with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates before the war?

Hayes: Well, I think we've already seen some indications that that's the case. There's one document that came out, was given to the New York Times in the summer of 2004 that was an internal Iraqi intelligence memo that actually described the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda at that time. This was January of 1997. So the people who say that there was no relationship are simply mistaken at this point.

Gigot: Steve, we've been able to listen to, I think, 12 hours of Saddam's tapes. He was apparently like Nixon. He liked to listen to--he liked to tape himself and hear what he had to say. Maybe keeping it for history. There are about 3,000 in total. Has the government even listened to those tapes in their entirety?

Hayes: My understanding is that they have not. Now I think that some members of Congress on the intelligence committees have had access to more than just the 12 hours--maybe 50 or 60 hours of these tapes. But this broader array of tapes, 3,000-plus hours, has not yet been made available to policy makers.

Gigot: Amazing. All right, so if we could find out all of this out, what is holding the administration back? It would seem to me it would have a good reason to make it all public.

Hayes: Yeah, one would think. You know, this is a classic fight between, I think, the president and some of his advisers. President Bush--we have a story in The Weekly Standard this week that President Bush has said repeatedly and emphatically that he wants these documents out and he wants them out now. John Negroponte, his director of national intelligence, has been fighting this, and fighting this really for several months. He's given a variety of reasons, some of them apparently contradictory. And so we can't really know why Negroponte doesn't want these documents out, but he seems to be at odds with his boss.

Gigot: But Steve, I'm puzzled. You just mentioned the word "boss." The president runs the show. How can one of the people who works for him, who he appointed, John Negroponte, not go along with what appear to be his wishes?

Hayes: Well, we don't know exactly what kind of orders the president has given to Negroponte, but I think it's pretty clear now that President Bush is on record saying that he wants the documents out. I'm hopeful, then, that this will sort of accelerate the process of getting this stuff out, and letting the American people see what we've learned. I mean, we have, as you've pointed out, more than two million unexploited items. There's a lot to learn.

Gigot: Well--and your information about how the president feels is about this is from your reporting with meetings he's had with members of Congress at the White House, where he has put on the record that he wants this out, but he has not said that publicly in any other forum, has he?

Hayes: He has not. It would be nice if he would do so, actually.

Gigot: OK. Let me read you a quote from Pete Hoekstra, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, who is pushing to have these documents released. He told you, I think, in an upcoming story that the people at the Directorate of National Intelligence are "State Department people who want to make no waves and don't want anything that would upset anyone," end quote. What do you think he's getting at with that analysis?

Hayes: Well, there's a concern. And this goes potentially to one of the reasons that Negroponte has avoided or refused to make this stuff public. There is one concern that Negroponte's staff has offered repeatedly that we don't want to embarrass our allies, and talk about embarrassing Russia because of their dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime, embarrassing France because of their dealings with the regime. These are allies that I think some people in the administration, potentially Negroponte, believe are being helpful: Russia with Iran, France with Syria. And embarrassing them might cause them to be disappointed or angry with the administration. I don't buy the premise. And in any case, it's not worth not putting these documents out so that people can see what they were up to.

Gigot: OK, Steve. Who do you think is going to win this fight in the end? Hoekstra, urging the documents to get out, or Negroponte, representing the intelligence agency?

Hayes: Well, I think Hoekstra, in large measure because he has the president on his side, and because it's hard to argue that these are documents that the American public generally should not see.

Gigot: OK, Steve. Thank you for that. I hope you're right. Thanks for joining us.

Hayes: Thanks, Paul.

Gigot: More on the Harmony program documents and Saddam's terror ties when we come back. Also ahead, South Dakota passes a sweeping abortion ban, but is there a split emerging among opponents of the procedure? Our panel tackles those topics and our "Hits and Misses" of the week when "The Journal Editorial Report" continues.

Joining the panel this week, Opinionjournal.com editor James Taranto, as well as Kim Strassel and Bret Stephens, both Wall Street Journal editorial board members.

Bret, you were with me recently when Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, came to see us. And we asked him about the documents and whether or not he was in favor for releasing them. He said get them out there, put them on the Internet, let everyone see them. Anything wrong with that strategy?

Stephens: No, I think it's the right strategy for two reasons. First of all, you put them in the public domain, we're going to be able to go through them more quickly than we are now. So far, we have about 2.5% of the documents out there. And at this rate, it's going to take generations to understand them fully. But there's another point. You know, Steve mentioned--he talked about the importance of understanding the history and the importance of understanding the insurgent strategy, but there's a basic political question. And it's this:

We are still fighting about what led us into war and whether the premises used by the president were really justified. And, of course, there's the battle over the existence of WMD, and another battle is the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. And these documents are very interesting because they do document extensive connections between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and groups like Ansar al Islam, which were operating in northern Iraq.

That's an important part of the debate. And the opponents of the war have managed to make those of us who supported it look like cranks, as if we're supporting something totally outlandish, we're making an outlandish case. It's not the case, and the more documents--the sooner we get the documents out, the sooner we'll be able to confirm those points.

Gigot: What about this issue of the national interest, James? People are saying that--the intelligence services, that we might damage our ties with France or perhaps some other country if we get these documents out and it turns out there's embarrassing information in there.

Taranto: Well, you know, France has done a lot to damage our ties with France. And I tend to agree with Steve that this is more important. I think Bret really hits the key point. This is to a large extent about politics. There's a very telling quote in Steve Hayes's piece from a man named Michael Tanji, a former intelligence analyst. He says, "We place"--Tanji says, "We place a higher value on intelligence information that comes to us before a conflict begins. Confirmation that we were right . . . after the fact is usually considered history." This is--he is describing the way the bureaucracy works.

Well, that would be fine if politics ended at the water's edge, if once we were at war, the country were united. But since Vietnam, we have this culture in this country, where there's a war against the war. And the administration needs to wage that war.

Strassel: You know, look, you were talking about the national interest. I think this goes beyond questions, too, of France. Let's not forget that we have our own intelligence agencies who are on the record as saying such things as Saddam was not involved--was very secular, was not involved with jihadists. This could be embarrassing to some of our own intelligence agencies if some of this information comes out and suggests that they were all wrong.

Stephens: Well, also, I mean, but one more point here. The question is, who gets to define the national interest? I mean, people who care for civil liberties shouldn't believe that some bureaucrat in the State Department or the DIA or the CIA is going to say, well, this is a matter of national security, put it stamp on it, and put it beyond--put it outside of the record for the next 50 years.

Look, we already know that there were ties between Russia and Saddam's regime, between France and Saddam's regime. The Oil for Food scandal brought a lot of that out. And it should not be up to bureaucrats to make decisions about what is going to harm our ties with the allies. The truth should be put out there.

Gigot: The CIA, we know, didn't predict the insurgency or the scope of the insurgency. It didn't anticipate it. There's a lot of evidence, is there not, James, that Saddam may have planned the insurgency from the beginning as a tactic? He knew he couldn't win the war, he knew he couldn't stop the invasion, but maybe he wanted to plan the insurgency. And that would directly relate to how we fight and who we're fighting right now.

Taranto: Well, absolutely. And don't forget also that the CIA has been part of this war against the war. A lot of CIA people--Paul Pillar has this new book out in which he repeats some of the myths that Bret was talking about before. Joe Wilson was freelancing for the CIA when he produced that report denying the Niger connection. So I think we really need to look at where in the beaucracy--and after all, we elect President Bush to represent the national interest. And if Negroponte isn't doing what Bush says he should do, I wonder why he hasn't been fired.

Gigot: All right, let's--OK, James. Let's hope Pete Hoekstra keeps pushing this issue.

Coming up, South Dakota passes a sweeping abortion ban, and Mississippi may soon follow. But for now, few other states seem eager to join in an all-out challenge to Roe v. Wade. Is a tactical split among abortion opponents emerging? Our panel weighs in after this short break.

Taranto: Well, I don't know, Paul. What are the odds that Justice Kennedy will wake up one morning with severe acute amnesia? I mean, we have five justices who are on record as supporting the idea of a constitutional right to abortion. That's a majority. Unless one of them has a drastic change of mind, which is not going to happen, the answer is zero.

Stephens: Yes, I think that the wisdom of "Animal House" applies here.

Gigot: The movie, the movie.

Stephens: The movie. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture to be done on somebody's part, and it looks like the South Dakota Legislature is just the group to do it.

Strassel: Well, look, there's a political bet going on here, though. The idea is that by the time this actually makes it up to the court, there may have actually been another change in the court. Now, that doesn't seem--

Gigot: So you get somebody like--

Strassel: --Stevens--

Gigot: --Justice Ginsburg or Justice Stevens retiring.

Strassel: --Stevens, who's almost 86 years old.

Gigot: But we don't know that that will happen.

Strassel: We have absolutely no idea, nor do we know who Bush would pick to replace them.

Gigot: But this isn't just about the politics of the court. It's also about the politics of the country. I mean, abortion--the abortion rate has been steadily declining. There are--I think most Americans think that there ought to be restrictions on late-term--on partial-birth--a prohibition on partial-birth abortion, restrictions on late-term abortions. And this kind of action is just the sort of thing that is calibrated to energize not Republican voters or pro-life voters, but the pro-choice movement, because they're going to point to this and say, look, your reproductive rights are at risk. And there are a lot of centrists who are going to be concerned about this.

Strassel: And those--and sorry, that movement, the pro-choice movement isn't just going to be satisfied with maintaining Roe. In the past, remember, there have been movements to also enshrine in federal law something like Roe, or--and also expanding Medicaid payments to pay for abortions. So I mean, they're going to be energized and they're going to have a greater agenda than just the status quo.

Taranto: Well, but that sort of thing is unpopular. I think if they turn their attention to making taxpayers pay for abortion, that's when they lose. They win when the issue is whether to ban it outright.

Gigot: Well, if Roe were overturned, of course, abortion would not suddenly be banned. It merely goes to the states, who would have this big political debate. South Dakota would appear to be one state which could ban it. Mississippi might be another. How many others are there really who would restrict abortion in that fundamental way?

Strassel: You know, there was a really interesting survey out last year, where they looked at people's opinions in the different states. About 36 had either a majority or plurality that were pro-choice--I mean, small, but they were actually were on the record as that way. And then there were about 13 states, South Dakota was one of them, where there were very tiny minorities--or majorities in favor of actually a pro-life position. But I think that, too, I mean, those numbers may not even be accurate, because if it actually came down to a vote, you could well have people thinking more about this and saying do they really want to ban this procedure? Not many people are going to follow this.

Taranto: And public opinion on this subject is very nuanced. Most people don't think that women should go to prison if they have abortions or that abortions should be allowed right up to the moment of birth. Most people are somewhere in the middle.

Strassel: Right.

Gigot: One indicator here of the politics at play is that Tim Johnson, the current Democratic senator from South Dakota, immediately came out and denounced the new law as extreme. Now he may run against Gov. Mike Rounds in 2008. So he clearly thinks that the politics is on his side in this. And I think a lot of people do believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, you'd see it probably helping the Democrats politically because that--you know, you might see these legislatures swing to a more extreme position.

Strassel: And you are going to have voters who--I mean, it's very likely that voters may still have a say in this in South Dakota. There is a push on at the moment to gather the signatures to allow the voters themselves to have the referendum on this.

Gigot: Kim, you get the last word. Thanks. We have to take one more break. When we come back, our "Hits and Misses" of the week.

Taranto: That's right, Paul. The court ruled this past week that colleges and universities can be forced to require--to allow military recruiters on campus. This was an issue that was pretty clearly on one side, but could have been contentious. But Chief Justice Roberts showed his political acumen by getting all seven other justices--Alito wasn't on the court yet--to join his opinion. And it was an opinion--it was a beautiful piece of legal craftsmanship. It was--it's tightly reasoned; it's nicely written, easy to understand, and shows flashes of wit. Chief Justice Roberts is living up, so far, to the billing of him as a brilliant jurist. And so I say hail to the chief.

Gigot: You know, a Supreme Court justice once told me that it's hard to underestimate the degree to which even the change of a single justice changes the internal dynamics on the court. So we had two. So it'll be interesting to watch the unfolding of the Roberts court. Thanks, James.

Next, Hollywood gives itself a pat on the back. Imagine that. Kim, was it deserved?

Strassel: You know, does anyone--strike anyone that Hollywood's been on a bit of a PR campaign? It's faced all this criticism for all these years that it's living in its own liberal bubble. And its new strategy seems to be, actually, we're not denying it, but you should be happy that we tackle all of these hard subjects. And so you had Mr. Clooney come out and talk about "Philadelphia," and the Oscar for Hattie McDaniel.

Gigot: George Clooney.

Strassel: George Clooney, yeah. And you had the Oscars themselves show a montage of all their famous movie moments. The problem is it's not actually true. You know, if you go back and look, I mean, "Newsweek" was running covers about the AIDS epidemic 10 years before Hollywood got around to doing it. And it also misses the point, which is that America doesn't look to Hollywood to be its engineers of social change. It wants it for entertainment. So as for the new PR campaign, my comment to Mr. Clooney is good night and good luck.

Gigot: All right, thanks, Kim. Finally, it may be America's pastime, but this week, Canada beat the U.S. at its own game. Bret, how did that happen?

Stephens: [Pounds table with fist, hits head on table.] That was for the benefit of our Canadian viewers. Well, look, it behooves us to be gracious. And there's a lesson here, I guess, in globalization and complacency. You know, for decades, the French thought they owned wine, and then the United States came up from behind and we're producing these wonderful award-winning wines. And you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The--we're getting beaten at our own games in basketball and baseball. One consolation, though. Thursday night, Mexico beat Canada 9-1. I say, viva Mexico.

HOME     TOP OF PAGE     ARCHIVE    

SUBSCRIBE TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE OR TAKE A TOUR

SIGN UP TODAY FOR FREE MARKETWATCH MEMBERSHIP