Reply #5: This is what the prospect had to say about it.....

[FrenchieCat]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/12/index.html#002021

December 01, 2003
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A CONSPIRACY? A typical rhetorical gambit you see in lame-brained commentary, especially on the right, is to accuse a person of fomenting a "conspiracy theory" even though said person never alleged any such thing. And it so it goes with this Weekly Standard piece on Wes Clark. It's written by Matthew Continetti, who appears to have been assigned to the "make Clark look like a congenital liar/eccentric nutcase" beat, but is not acquitting himself particularly well. The article, headlined "Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory," takes issue with Clark's recent statement on CNN's
------------------------------------
Here's an editorial from the Sept. 18, 2003 edition of the Financial Times, hardly a bastion of goo-goo leftism:

The Bush administration this week said it remained sure weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be uncovered in Iraq. This attitude may be understandable as a sort of geo-Micawberism in lieu of any actual weapons turning up. But the approach underlying it is now being extended to Syria.
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a congressional subcommittee on Tuesday: "In Syria we see expanding WMD capabilities and state sponsorship of terrorism. As the president has said, we cannot allow the world's most dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes." Sound familiar?

Heck, Bolton's testimony was leaked to The New York Times' Judith Miller by, in her words, "individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention" -- i.e., hawks who wanted a tougher line against the country.