Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Allan
Yes, Tierney seems to be going back and forth on this, as if he's figuring out what will fly, or what positions can be taken without getting himself relegated to tin-hat territory.

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.

42 posted on 03/09/2006 10:34:10 PM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Mitchell
How did he justify the claim that Hatfill was a proxy for Saddam?

He gave no reasons whatsoever.
He just pulled it out of thin air.
He also rambled on about the Oklahoma City bombing
TWA flight 800, etc
insinuating that all of this was the work of Saddam.

44 posted on 03/09/2006 10:47:00 PM PST by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Mitchell
However, it's hard to see how one can reach a conclusion about a possible proxy from that.

You are right.
Saddam could have hired him to produce and distribute the 'gold standard' anthrax.
Or the Martians could have done it too.

45 posted on 03/09/2006 10:51:11 PM PST by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Mitchell
As you say, at this point, there really is nothing to suggest that Saddam had biological WMDs.

Perhaps we have overestimated the danger
of 'rogue states' and terrorists using biological weapons.
(At least for the time being).

It requires a fair amount of technical sophistication
to produce effective biological weapons.

And these people are not sophisticated.
All they can think about are atomic bombs.
47 posted on 03/09/2006 11:42:11 PM PST by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson