Robert Joseph: nuke industry lobbyist, full-fledged neocon

[lanlady]

A bit of dope on Joseph, who as of this hour seems to be the guy identified on the NSC as responsible for the "16 words:"

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03jan-feb/jan-feb03corp2.html

extract:

Nuclear Weapons: Here to Stay
Two decades ago, President Reagan unveiled his Star Wars scheme with the intention of rendering nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete."

Today, the word coming from the Pentagon's recently released Nuclear Posture Review is that nuclear weapons are here to stay. If the recommendations from the Bush administration's review are carried out, the declared purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons could change from deterrence and weapon of last resort to a central, usable component of the U.S. anti-terror arsenal.

The origins of this dramatic shift in U.S. nuclear policy trace to corporate-financed think tanks like the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP). NIPP's January 2001 report, "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control," served as a model for the Bush administration's review. There are a number of parallels in the two reports. Both recommend developing a new generation of "usable" lower-yield nuclear weapons, expanding the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and expanding the set of scenarios in which nuclear weapons may be used.

Three members of the study group which produced the NIPP report are now in the administration. These include National Security Council members Stephen Hadley and Robert Joseph and Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Stephen Cambone. NIPP Director Keith Payne -- probably best known for his infamous 1980 essay on nuclear war, "Victory is Possible" -- was appointed head of the Pentagon's Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, which will help the Pentagon to implement the Nuclear Posture Review.

NIPP is closely aligned with the nuclear weapons industry. Its advisory board includes Kathleen Bailey, who spent six years as an analyst at the Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory, Charles Kupperman, vice president for national missile defense programs at Lockheed Martin, and Robert Barker, a 30-year veteran of Lawrence Livermore weapons lab.

Missile Defense: Ploy or Deploy?

[UTUSN]

1. Here's Google on Robert G. JOSEPH

Another fossil from the Poppy Administration, and his testimonies are chock full of NeoCon canon---------WMD are here to stay, what worked with U.S.S.R. (discussion) won't work with N. Korea, overwhelming force.

Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Robert+G.+Joseph&btnG=Google+Search

******QUOTE*****
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/83/jos83.htm
Ambassador Robert G. Joseph is Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Proliferation Strategies, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense, U.S. National Security Council Staff. He is recognized as a leading member of the group of Republican defense strategists whose writings helped to shape the national security outlook of candidate George W. Bush. Since joining the Bush administration, Ambassador Joseph has played a key role on such issues as developing a new strategic framework with Russia and improving coordination of U.S. counterproliferation initiatives.
Prior to joining the National Security Council (NSC) staff, Dr. Joseph served as a Professor of National Security Studies and Director of the Center for Counterproliferation Research at the National Defense University.

In the previous Bush administration, he held the positions of U.S. Commissioner to the Standing Consultative Commission on the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and Ambassador to the U.S.-Russian Consultative Commission on Nuclear Testing. In the Reagan administration, he held several positions within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy.

http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/marines2002/joseph.htm
....“So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action.”

(Access by registration) Interview with Ambassador Robert G. Joseph
Volume VIII, Number 3/Fall 2001. Interview with Ambassador Robert
G. Joseph conducted by Leonard S. Spector. Background. Ambassador ...
www.ciaonet.org/olj/npr/npr_01spl01.html - Similar pages

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/1999/990323rj.pdf
.... My starting point, and first conclusion, is that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are a permanent feature of the international environment. These weapons are not going to go away; they cannot be disinvented. The knowledge and the technology to build them will spread even further. ....

http://www.ndu.edu/centercounter/prolif_publications.htm
The Publications of the Center for Counterproliferation Research

*****UNQUOTE****

[UTUSN]

2. "Theologicus" Had the Names Back on 7-13

******QUOTE*****
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=415

Comments: Rice Lies Again This Morning on Fox
Josh Marshall also puts the spotlight on Rice today.

While I see no reason to exonerate her, I don't think she is at the heart of the problem.

Marshall's question from July 12 is more on the right track: If Tenet and the CIA are guilty of not pushing hard enough to keep bogus or 'highly dubious' information out of the State of the Union speech, who was pushing on the other side?

I have suggested on another thread here today that the real protagonists are Rumsfeld and Cheney and that their henchman was Robert G. Joseph.

Posted by theologicus at July 13, 2003 12:53 PM
Time: A Question of Trust

When the time came to decide whether Bush was going to cite the allegation, the CIA objected—and then relented. Two senior Administration officials tell TIME that in a January conversation with a key National Security Council (nsc) official just a few days before the speech, a top cia analyst named Alan Foley objected to including the allegation in the speech. The nsc official in charge of vetting the sections on WMD, Special Assistant to the President Robert Joseph, denied through a spokesman that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence. But another official told TIME, "There was a debate about whether to cite it on our own intelligence. But once the U.K. made it public, we felt comfortable citing what they had learned." And so the line went in. While some argued last week that the fight should have been kicked upstairs to Rice for adjudication, White House officials claim that it never was.

Does Robert G. Joseph have plausible deniability?

Posted by theologicus at July 13, 2003 01:23 PM
*****UNQUOTE****