The blogger Roger L. Simon has posted an interview with former U.N. weapons inspector William Tierney, recorded on Saturday at the introduction of the “Saddam Tapes” in Arlington, Virginia. In the interview, Tierney elaborated on some of his theories that Iraq has been involved in a number of attacks and disasters involving Americans in the last several years. His evidence is not exactly overwhelming. For example, when Simon asked Tierney whether he had hurt his case by stating his belief that Iraq was behind the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Tierney answered, “All I said is that there are more tapes out there, and I would not be surprised if there is discussion of these things. If there is, then we take it from there. If there isn’t, then there isn’t.”

Tierney also, on his own, brought up the crash of TWA 800. “They all said that was a mechanical failure,” Tierney said. “There’s plenty of evidence that it was shot down.” Tierney mentioned theories that Iran was involved, and then, as he had with both Oklahoma City and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, suggested that Iraq might be to blame. He speculated about finding a tape in which an Iraqi agent was given an award for downing the plane while making it look like a mechanical failure. “We do know that Saddam was at war with us at that time,” Tierney said.

One more note, this one on what Tierney said about Steven Hatfill and the anthrax issue. In my article, I wrote that Tierney, after stating his belief in Iraq’s involvement in the first World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, “also said that he believes Iraq orchestrated the 2001 anthrax attacks, with Saddam Hussein using American scientist Steven Hatfill as a ‘proxy’ to carry out the mission.”

I cited as evidence a portion of the question-and-answer session after Tierney’s speech. A CNN producer asked him a question, “Do I infer correctly that you believe that the anthrax letters were an attack on the U.S. by Iraq, with Steven Hatfill being used as a proxy by Iraq?” Tierney gave a one-word answer: “Yes.” Nevertheless, it should be said that in his speech, Tierney said that Hatfill was innocent, while after the speech he said that Hatfill was being used as a proxy in the attack. The best that can be said is that it is not entirely clear just what Tierney’s theory is.