« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Who Are The Gosslings?
In recent days, speculation about who leaked to CQ the news about Jane Harman's wiretapped conversation with a suspected Israel agent has seemed to focus on former CIA director Porter Goss -- or, more precisely, the group of Goss aides known as the Gosslings.
So we thought it was worth taking a closer look at this crew. And it looks like they have quite a reputation...
In 2004, Goss moved over from chairing the House intelligence committee to running the CIA, and he took four of his top committee aides with him -- even though, as we noted yesterday, they had already been labelled "partisan" and "inexperienced" by Harman. At CIA, Goss reportedly invented new positions for several of them, to mediate between him and the intelligence and operations directorates, allowing them to operate to a great degree as free agents.
Indeed, Goss is said to have deferred key decisions the Gosslings, who were reportedly also known as the Hitler Youth. "He was softened up over the years by these guys like a Kobe beef cow," one person who worked at the CIA under Goss told Harpers in 2006. "He couldn't make a move without their help."
So, who were the Gosslings?
Patrick Murray
Murray was the top lawyer on the intelligence committee under Goss, and became his chief of staff at CIA.
While on the committee, Murray acted as a crucial go-between for Goss and the Bush White House. In 2005, a former committee staffer told Robert Dreyfuss of the American Prospect: " There was a sense that [Murray], even more than Porter, was close to the folks at the White House. And that [Murray] was making everything happen, with lots of meetings at the White House, with Cheney's office, and House leadership. "
Dreyfuss added that Goss "was seen as a prisoner of his staff -- above all, of Murray."
For instance:
During one confrontation over a controversial piece of legislation, when other members challenged Goss, he deferred to Murray. "Goss looked sad and apologetic, and he looked at us and said, 'Pat runs the show,' " according to a source. "We all wondered, 'What does Pat Murray have on Porter Goss?'"
Once at CIA, Murray quickly alienated the agency's old guard. In November 2004, the Washington Post reported that John McLaughlin, a CIA veteran who had served as acting director, resigned after warning Goss that Murray, "was treating senior officials disrespectfully and risked widespread resignations." Soon afterwards, Steve Kappes, the deputy director for operations also resigned, after Murray had ordered Kappes to fire a deputy with whom Murray had clashed.
Jay Jakub
Jakub was a subcommittee staff director under Goss, who at CIA became a senior advisor for operations and analysis."
During the 1980s and 1990s, Jakub was a CIA analyst and case officer, before serving as the chief investigator on GOP congressman Dan Burton's famously partisan inquiry into Clinton-Gore campaign finance practices stemming from the 1996 election.
While on the committee, Jakub took the lead in writing a June 2004 intelligence committee report, which called the CIA "dysfunctional" and accused it of "misallocation and redirection of resources, poor prioritization of objectives, micromanagement of field operations and a continued political aversion to operational risk." The report triggered charges that Goss was angling to replace George Tenet as CIA director -- which occurred three month later.
"He's widely viewed as having very strong partisan views," a former CIA colleague of Jakub's told Salon that year. "Jay leaps too early. He acts on his views, and often doesn't seem like a measured decision maker."
In 2006, Harper's reported that Jakub "undertook a major (and unnecessary) review of the CIA's liaison relationship with British intelligence, in part, sources said, because it allowed him to make multiple trips to London, a favored destination."
Michael Kostiw
It says something about this crew that perhaps the best-regarded of them had his career derailed for shoplifting pork products.
Kostiw was picked by Goss to be executive director -- the number 3 job that later went to Dusty Foggo. But the Washington Post soon reported that, 20 years earlier, Kostiw had been arrested for stealing a package of bacon, and instead became a senior adviser to Goss.
In that capacity Kostiw, an agency veteran, reportedly acted as a force for moderation, despite his credentials as a conservative Republican. He suggested traveling to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chavez, with whom he had a friendly relationship, and offered realistically downbeat assessments of the situation in Iraq.
Merrell Moorhead
Moorhead was the committee's deputy staff director, and became another top aide to Goss at CIA.
CQ's Jeff Stein -- who broke the recent Harman wiretapping story, and who, we can't help noticing, seems to have kept in contact with the Gosslings -- reported in 2007 that Moorhead had moved to Nova Scotia and begun a new career as a vintner.
It's worth remembering: we don't know that any of these people, or even that anyone around Goss, leaked the Harman information. But looking at this record, let's just say, we wouldn't put it past a few of them.
Josh
Zachary
If I remember correctly, several years ago, one or several archived podcasts of 'Democracynow.org' with Ms. Amy Goodman had extensive reporting on these concerns and/or issues.
It appears to be all the same people in the BUSH//OBAMA Administration.
Is it correct that the recent past 100 days have been fully vetted by our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial leadership et all, (Secrets, Torture) and are identical to and/or similar and/or worse and as Testified to in the last 100 Days in all US Courts, including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Obama//Holder DOJ?
May 1, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is not correct. It will take a lot longer than 100 days to review and vet all the actions of the Bush Administration - and even longer to set the proceedures in place to change those that need changing.
.
May 5, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I presume you should be fully aware that non-action, advocation, complicity and/or conspiracy to the continuing Bush era Administration legal applications are not a reasonable resolvment correction endeavor and/or by any stretch of the imagination and are seemingly absolutely appalling and/or if not outright deceitful, dishonest, disingenuous lies from this Obama/Holder Administration.
Also, please recall a prior blog comment reply interpretation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on this area of concern of inaction, complicity and conspiracy.
May 5, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Johann, the first part of my reply did not post.
It was something to the effect that,
My question is correct and as presumably is your answer, in part, that it may take over a 100 days to fully correct and resolve the many forthcomming concerns.
May 5, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also as 'We the People' have seemingly lost all access to our Executive, Legislative and Judicial Leadership Branches of our 'We the People' Government and that proper and forthright Hearings, Commissions, Investigations appear to disappear and/or immediatley disappear permanently and be ignored at best and without reasonable application endeavors thereof and/or in complete violation of our US Constitution, Bill of Rights, WHERE IS THE//YOUR FIRST DAY OF THE 100 DAY THE SO-CALLED IMPLIED, PROPER AND FORTHRIGHT 'REVIEW AND VET' CONSIDERATION??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 5, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeff Stein is fed up with the crap being advanced by Zachary, Ron, Laura and now being employed by Lanny to defend our Jane:
"The Justice Department's decision to drop espionage charges against two pro-Israel lobbyists will certainly pour jet fuel on conspiracy theories burning up the blogosphere over the Jane Harman wiretap controversy.
Some wild imaginations have been at work in the blogarama coverage of revelations that the California Democrat was allegedly overheard on a wiretap promising a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby Bush administration officials to go lenient on Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, the two former officials of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) set to be cleared of charges today, according to The Washington Post's Jerry Markon.
Now a whole new structure of conspiracy theories will have to be constructed around a Harman role in the case.
Some wild imaginations have already been at work on the story. Which is fine -- except when it misrepresents what I've been writing.
The drift of the latest commentary on the case is that Porter Goss, the former Republican congressman who headed the CIA during 2004-2006, was out to "get" Harman, his Democratic nemesis on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, when he was its chairman.
In other words, the question of what Israeli agents were up to in Washington has been smothered by an obsession with a Harman-Goss rivalry.
This angle took flight in an April 24 blog by the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Ron Kampeas, headlined "Why Did Goss finger Jane Harman?"
Well, the short answer is that he didn't, as was made plain in my stories, which were corroborated by the New York Times and Washington Post.
According to my sources and theirs, Goss was duty bound to notify congressional leaders that Harman had become enmeshed in a national security investigation, and that the FBI intended to question her about a wiretapped conversation she had with a suspected Israeli secret agent.
In a number of places, however, this was rendered as "CQ reported that Goss sought approval to pursue an investigation from both former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, but was rebuffed."
No. Goss sought clearance merely to NOTIFY then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that Harman had been heard making potentially prosecutable statements on the wiretap.
Furthermore, of course, the CIA has no power to "investigate" Harman, or anyone in the U.S., in the usual sense of the word.
Over at The Cable, Laura Rozen endowed the CIA director with even further power and motivation to "go after" Harman, writing, "Goss's decision to authorize a FISA warrant that would tap a former fellow lawmaker and rival seems potentially troubling."
It would indeed be troubling if that were in fact what Goss did. But the problem with Rozen's assertion is that Goss had no power to "authorize a FISA warrant." As Rozen must know, that power belongs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, upon petition by the Justice Department.
Rozen further muddies the issue by referring to "DOJ's burgeoning investigation into Harman."
Not only was a Justice Department "investigation" of Harman not "burgeoning," it had not even begun, as I and others have reported, based on first-hand sources.
The Justice Department was investigating secret Israeli operations in the United States, not Harman. (And now even that investigation has evidently come up empty).
Back in 2005, however, what the congresswoman was overheard saying to the wiretap target was troubling enough to prompt an investigation of her. But as I have reported, the FBI was blocked from questioning her by Attorney General Gonzales, with the support of National Intelligence chief John D. Negroponte, according to my now numerous sources.
Everything else written about hidden agendas in this case is speculation, which, by the looks of instant commentary on the AIPAC case, will undoubtedly continue to take the place of reporting on this sordid affair."
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/05/aipac-verdict-sure-to-fuel-mor.html
Laura Rozen's contribution to Operation Smother is damaging her credibility as a reporter.
May 1, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the critical comments and denials it still looks to me like there is at least one "conspiracy" to control if possible or at least influence US Middle East policy in Israel's favor. This looks like it has been a very long term effort to install principals in secure positions in media, political and government positions. Why would our (US) support of Israel be so strong and biased if this wasn't the case? How does Israel serve us? What have they ever done to deserve the support they get from the USA? If it wasn't for this huge and powerful lobby (not just AIPAC but many other groups also) and all the other secure operatives working for the Israeli cause, how can this be explained? The Pro-Israel propaganda that goes on is awesome, the intimidation is awesome too when someone calls them on it.
May 2, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only where my blog comment reply may be interpreted as of an appropriate endeavor of helpful nature and with the primary goal of a
' Lets somehow hopefully retain and apply to continue with faith and for the hope and hopefully with proper and forthright applications and endeavors of faith for the Hope for Peace'.
Lets hope we do not become proper and forthright acknowleged Whistleblowers that go as mentioned in US Senatorial//Congressional testimony within the recent decade as 'Ignoring the Messenger = Shoot the Messenger'.
May 2, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also and as appropriate lets hope our US Senatorial//Congressional Legislatures that are from our 'voting' 'trust' and within our 'We the People' Congressional//Senatorial (Executive and Judicial) Offices that properly and forthrightly apply their 'in god we trust' due dilligence within their many obligations, duties and hearings (ecetra) and where applicable subpoenas and appointments.
May 2, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is pure gibberish!
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
May 3, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably a waste of time for me to reply to your ridiculous provocation although as seemingly, from your prior blog comment blog replies within this Article you are clearly able and seemingly have the knowledge, skills and ability too eloberate rather that your seemingly misleading, wrongful and foundationless reply remarks and your abusive, intentional and deliberate, disrespectful remarks to me.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 3, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, my reply was intended as a very brief polite and hopefully optomistic begging and pleading reminder as a 'We the People' for our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our US Government to apply the proper and forthright Transparency, Oversight and Accountability within there sworn Responsibilities, Duties and Obligations that has been notably missing within the past 8 years alone and for the most and significant part(s) in the first 100 Days of this Administration which sadly and seemingly unfortunately appears to be a continued Obama/Bush Administration and wrongdoings thereof.
May 3, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction..........You have not posted any prior blog comment replies on this Article..... I mistakenly I thought you had....all the previous blog comment replies on this Article appear with the proper and forthright expression of concern....yours are and where completely and as apparently inteneded from you to be abusive and nonsense as without any respectful and/or regardful factual basis and/or concern, especially in view of the other highly formidable replies.....a seemingly complete disrespect to all and including within the endeavors of this TPM Article.
May 3, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was Jane talking to the Israeli agent about Iran? Because she has been trying to drum up a war for Israel against Iran ever since she got to Congress in the mid-1990s when she started sponsoring economic sanction bills against Iran. I wish someone would ask her whether she thinks the national security interests of Israel and the U.S. are identical. That would be the only explanation of why she agreed to interfere in the AIPAC espionage trial.
The AIPAC trial went away so that we would not start asking these questions.
May 2, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Jane Harman on Iran in 2007:
February 14, 2007
HARMAN DELIVERS KEYNOTE ADDRESS ON IRAN
AT NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION EVENT
WASHINGTON D.C. -- Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Venice), Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, today delivered a keynote address at a New America Foundation forum titled US-Iran Relations: Collision, Stand-Off, or Convergence? Below are her remarks, as prepared:
Iran is extremely dangerous. Their highly developed indigenous missile capability can hit Israel in a matter of minutes and parts of Europe (Turkey) as well as Russia. With a developing nuclear capability, most intelligence analysts believe it could produce a bomb by the end of the decade. They are a sponsor of an A-List international terror organization - Hezbollah - which has worldwide reach and most recently provoked a war with Israel. Hezbollah soldiers in that war were trained and equipped by Iran.
Iran recently meddled in Lebanon - where Hezbollah is destabilizing the Siniora government, and in Iraq - where Iranian-made EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) have been used for several years, and there is some information that al Quds fighters are also present there.
But although Iran is decidedly dangerous, the policy question is what to do about it. The recently declassified summary of the second Iraq NIE made clear that Iran's influence in Iraq "is not likely to be a driver of violence." If this is so, why did the Bush Administration roll out old information (from unidentified senior officials) over the weekend about Iran's activity in Iraq?
Possibly to distract attention from the daily suicide bombings and mass carnage? Or, perhaps, to provoke Iran into actions that could justify retaliation? Surely that is a fair question - and many speculate that there are plenty of neo-cons who want to take action.
The information itself has provoked controversy about whether, as claimed, the Iranian government is involved. I won't reveal classified information, but it is reported today that [Chairman of the Joints Chiefs General] Pete Pace is not ready to conclude that Iran's top leaders are behind the attacks.
Rather than attack Iran about Iraq - a subject which plays to our weakness - we should go after Iran where we are strong and it is weak: economic sanctions.
Sanctions are working - some major international banks have cut Iran off, and its economy is suffering. But, the Iran Sanctions Act is not being fully enforced - the US should refuse to do business with subsidiaries that still do business with Iran. An op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post listed many of these.
Countries like Russia which have transferred missile technology and continue to aid Iran should be told they are putting their WTO status at risk. Europe continues to trade although the EU has agreed to sanctions. Royal Dutch Shell just signed a $12 billion agreement to aid Iranian refineries. China and India still trade with Iran. A good play there would be for the Saudis, who fear Iranian hegemony, to force them to choose between Saudi oil and trade with Iran.
The bottom line is we need to expand sanctions, not saber-rattling. Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Saban Center Research Director Ken Pollack worries we may "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."
I also do not favor taking military force off the table - but we must require authorization by Congress. Our military is depleted and over-stretched. Our country is divided. Inserting Congress will assure we comply with our Constitution and prevent rogue action by this Administration or any future one. But there may be a time when we will have to act. Congress acted in a day following Pearl Harbor. I would fly to Washington, DC at a moment's notice to pass a war resolution if the circumstances justified it.
A nuclear Iran will threaten US interests as well as world security, and we must adopt effective strategies to prevent it. Israel's Deputy Minister of Defense Ephraim Sneh explains the effect simply possessing the bomb would have on our democratic ally in the region, Israel: peace negotiations would end, Israel's military options to defense itself would be limited, and foreign investors would flee.
And I believe an Iranian nuclear capability would start a Middle East arms race - Egypt and Saudi Arabia have made that clear. We have evidence that our economic and diplomatic strategies are working - so we should expand them and reject needless saber-rattling that will undercut them.
Most observers believe Iran's internal economy and political situation are increasingly fragile. Today's bombing in Tehran was carried out by its own ethnic Baloch minority, who see themselves as heirs of an ancient tradition distinct from ethnic Persians. They identify with a larger community in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and with Sunni Islam.
And this week's nuclear deal with North Korea, while imperfect, is a very welcome outcome.
The sun and moon may be aligned to do something even better in Iran - if we keep our policy focused and disciplined.
###
Home | Press
May 2, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does seem the Harman apologists are hard at work pointing the leak finger in multiple directions, but focused on Goss (and now his Gosslings). Goss is not a good guy and I don't doubt the Gosslings are trouble, but let's not take the heat off the AIPAC loving, war-mongering Harman.
Harman must go, and various blogs can make all they want of who did what when like so many Harman protectors wanting to maniupulate this situation, but at the center is Jane Harman and her arrogant misrepresentation of California's 36th Congressional District.
May 2, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Question:
"Who are the Goslings?"
The goslings are those Republican underlings who are learning that there are no consequences to performing illegal acts, including torture, as long as it is done in the name of "National Security", and can be hidden behind "State Secrets".
They are comparable to the underlings in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980's who resurfaced in the 2000's and gave the USA torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanimo, and all the secret prisons.
Expect them to return with a vengeance when the Republicans return to power in the 2020's.
.
May 4, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink