It seems this Tierney has disavowed this position. See the letter Tierney wrote to National Review Online, http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_19_corner-archive.asp#090361, responding to Byron York's article:
"The other major error in your piece was the contention I stated that Saddam Hussein used Stephen [sic] Hatfill to do their dirty work. If you had been listening more closely, you would have heard me say they could have their proxies send the anthrax letters, then point the finger at a former associate of Fort Detrick, such as Mr. Hatfill. I maintain that Mr. Hatfill was innocence based on examination of his public statements and the paucity of reliable evidence. You should really check the CSPAN tape before you commit your errors to print."
As far as I can tell, he has gone back and forth on the question of Hatfill's role, if any, in response to oral questions, but these seem to be just brief answers in passing. The written statement above would seem to be a definitive presentation of his view.
By the way, since you mentioned it, Tierney's position on this isn't too far from TGS's position.
It seems that Tierney has disavowed this position....
I saw a video interview with Tierney on the net.
From the way he worded it
it certainly seemed he said
Saddam was using Hatfill as a proxy
NOT that Saddam was using Hatfill as a fall-guy.
But perhaps he just was careless
in the way he worded it.
He certainly did not make it clear
that there was some 3rd person who was the proxy
as he does in the clarification you quoted.
At any rate
I was
on the whole
unimpressed with Tierney
who seems to support conspiracy theories
left and right.
But he seems to know Arabic well
and that is impressive.
Anyway
Hatfill was neither proxy
nor Saddam's fall guy
since Saddam did not have biological WMDs.
That at least is abundantly clear.
Is TGS still around? I, for one, miss him.