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.
To expand a bit more:
the impression I got from the Tierney interview was
that he wanted to indicate Hatfill was acting
on behalf of Saddam
but later
when people pressed him on the point
he chickened out
no doubt aware that otherwise
he could be sued for libel.
Tierney is a loopy character.
At the end of the interview
he broke down in tears.
How did he justify the claim that Hatfill was a proxy for Saddam? Is there something in the tapes, or was it just random speculation on his part?
Anyway
Hatfill was neither proxy
nor Saddam's fall guy
since Saddam did not have biological WMDs.
That at least is abundantly clear.
As you say, at this point, there really is nothing to suggest that Saddam had biological WMDs. The things that seemed to point in that direction have invariably turned out to be flaky, or unsourced, or extremely doubtful. Some of these things were probably disinformation, and some were probably expressions of genuine, if misguided, conspiratorial belief.
However, it's hard to see how one can reach a conclusion about a possible proxy from that. A proxy could have gotten his anthrax from somewhere other than Saddam but could still have been a hired gun for Saddam. Or someone could be a proxy for someone other than Saddam.
These may not be likely possibilities, of course. We may never find out.