Those who discount a possible relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda often allege that information used to bolster a possible relationship between the two sides was “cherry picked.” Of course, because of the sheer volume of intelligence reports that are available to decision makers, all intelligence reports are “cherry-picked” to a certain extent. But leaving that aside, those who make this allegation are often guilty of their own “cherry-picking.” Rarely, if ever, do they seriously address the mountains of evidence that conflicts with their narrow point of view , merely charging that intelligence was “manipulated” or “misused.” (and "cherry-picked") This is a rather convenient way to avoid talking about the details of a possible relationship and its significance.

Recently, those in the “no ties” camp did a little more “cherry-picking” of their own. Stephen Hayes documented a few examples in his latest piece for the Weekly Standard.

In a recent Atlantic story, Mary Anne Weaver speaks with the son of bin Laden's mentor Huthaifa Azzam. Azzam is one of at least two al Qaeda mouthpieces who has gone on record to say that Saddam Hussein’s regime invited al Qaeda members into Iraq long before the start of the war. AFP, 8-30-04 Yet, Weaver carefully avoids mentioning those comments from Azzam because they don’t fit the template of her story. In fact, a few sentences later, referring to Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N. she writes “Powell identified al-Zarqawi—mistakenly, as it turned out—as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime” Really, says who? Not Mr. Azzam, who would have told Weaver otherwise if she had bothered to ask him, or perhaps she did ask him and then just refused to print what he said.

Another example of the selective use of people’s quotes is former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Allawi’s knowledge of Iraqi affairs was cited extensively when he opined that Iraq was in a civil war. Yet, when Allawi made himself available to discuss his knowledge of the former regimes ties to al Qaeda he was largely ignored and in some cases outright challenged. Again, one must ask why Allawi’s statements about an Iraqi civil war were repeated without challenge by many in the media and his comments about Saddam Hussein’s links to al Qaeda were treated with skepticism and disbelief?

The same sort of “cherry-picking” was in full effect immediately after the release of the 9-11 commission’s final report. “Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed”, “9-11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al Qaida” were the typical headlines at the time. The only problem is that the 9-11 commission really found no such thing, as a number of others have already documented.

Now, the next time a story cites Iyad Allawi, the 9-11 report or Huthaifa Azzam perhaps they will tell you what else those sources said, instead of “cherry-picking.”

Update: Thomas Joscelyn has a piece at Weekly Standard that also addresses this issue.