Navy Seals in Gunfight Against ISIS

The Navy Seal who died yesterday in a shootout with ISIS is Charles Keating IV, grandson of the late financier and real estate developer who was convicted and served jail time in the 1980's savings and loan scandal.

Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Charles H. Keating IV, 31, was shot and killed during a two-hour battle with about 125 militants who had stormed the Kurdish-held town of Tel Skuf, about 20 miles north of Mosul.

Keating “got hit just in the course of his gun battle. Whether it was a sniper or some fighter with his [rifle] is unclear,” Warren said. “This was a gunfight so there were bullets everywhere.”

As the militants advanced, the U.S. force was sent in to extract the Americans and to help the Kurdish fighters, who have been key allies in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State.

Here'a a video of the Navy Seals participating with Peshmerga Kurdish forces in direct clashes with ISIS in Telskuf in Mosul. (No graphic images or victims)

How is this not "boots on the ground?"

< Kasich Drops Out | New Details in Prince Death Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Charles Keating, Jr. was never in Congress. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 04, 2016 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    Rather, several congressmen were in his back pocket. ;-D

    Before he gained notoriety in the Saving and Loan scandals of the 1980s, the elder Keating actually first came to public prominence as an anti-adult entertainment crusader in his native Cincinnati. He was the guy who led public agitation in his hometown to indict, try and convict Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt on charges of pandering and racketeering. (Flynt's conviction was later overturned on appeal.)

    As head of "Citizens for Decent Literature" in 1965, Keating, Jr. produced a rather campy little 30-min. film called "Perversion for Profit" that was narrated by George Putnam, a popular but thoroughly bombastic right-wing L.A. news anchor from that era who was later caricatured rather deftly by actor Ted Knight on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." (See the resemblance?)


    thanks, corrected (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 04, 2016 at 11:36:25 PM EST
    as to Congressman title. I was thinking of the Keating 5 and didn't remember he was the beneficiary of the legislators, not one of them.

    Keating's businesses continued to spiral downward, taking the five senators with him. Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, and their critics added a new term to the American lexicon: "The Keating Five."

    The Keating Five became synonymous for the kind of political influence that money can buy. As the S&L failure deepened, the sheer magnitude of the losses hit the press. Billions of dollars had been squandered. The five senators were linked as the gang who shilled for an S&L bandit.

    S&L "trading cards" came out. The Keating Five card showed Charles Keating holding up his hand, with a senator's head adorning each finger. McCain was on Keating's pinkie.

    As the investigation dragged through 1988, McCain dodged the hardest blows. Most landed on DeConcini, who had arranged the meetings and had other close ties to Keating, including $50 million in loans from Keating to DeConcini's aides.

    But McCain made a critical error.

    He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.

    Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.

    On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

     The case still dogs John McCain.

    Lincoln was the most expensive failure in the national S&L scandal. Taxpayers lost more than $2 billion on the bailout.

    Of course, this has nothing to do with his grandson who was killed yesterday, although all the papers mention it.


    Seals were sent to rescue (none / 0) (#2)
    by Green26 on Wed May 04, 2016 at 06:04:22 PM EST
    US advisors who were in danger from a fairly big surprise ISIS attack, which broke through the front lines. Read that the whole battle was about 12 hours. Don't know how long the Seals were there. As I've said previously, I suspect that there are US troops there than have been announced, especially these special ops troops.

    this has to stop (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:35:00 PM EST
    this is so sad.  he had a fiance and was to get married this november.  now he is dead and her life and her dreams are shattered.  why are americans still dying there?  it's a hortible horrible worthless place.  stop sending people there to die!

    This is not to be coarse (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2016 at 07:52:54 AM EST
    But it is a different life marrying a SEAL or anyone in Spec Ops. You know what they do is extremely dangerous. We are many years down this road now too. Hopefully he had his paperwork in order and she receives his SGLI benefits. Most of us are carrying significant additional life insurance on our soldier spouses as well so that we can grieve completely, and we can start over.

    How is this not "boots on the ground?" (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 04, 2016 at 11:54:16 PM EST
    Of course it is.  

    What to you expect from mister you can keep your health care plan, you can keep your doctor, your health car cost will go down $2,500 a year?

    Why is it news that (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 05, 2016 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    that this hero's grandfather was a crook?

    Sort of what I wondered too (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2016 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    Because Charles Keating IV was ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 05, 2016 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    ... the grandson of a very prominent and infamous crook and as such, there are likely more than a few people who would have otherwise asked publicly if the two men were somehow related, were it not first disclosed upfront by the media.

    Anyway, I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that the late SSGT Keating is hardly responsible for his late grandfather's actions. I'd offer better than even odds that he was likely asked more than once whether he was related to Charles Keating, Jr.

    I had a college baseball teammate who was the grandson and namesake of a once-prominent physician and now thoroughly discredited proponent of eugenics, who back in the 1920s and '30s had advocated nationwide for the mandatory sterilization of the mentally ill.

    My friend was so embarrassed by his infamous grandfather -- who had actually died two years before he was born -- that he took to calling himself by his middle name rather than by his given first name, and he further insisted that others do the same, including members of his own family.  

    Obviously, you can't pick your relatives, any more than you can stop other people from asking about them.



    Who his grandfather is/was (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2016 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    Should be in small print at best. We have had many soldiers die since 9/11 who were the grandson of someone who had a past, and that past stayed out of their press releases for the most part.

    Good grief (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 06, 2016 at 08:37:50 AM EST
    Anyway, I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that the late SSGT Keating is hardly responsible for his late grandfather's actions.

    Why would anyone have asked about his grandfather?

    Look, commenting on something that he had absolutely no control over is in the same drawer as specifying the race of a person when there is no need.


    It is why Congress should have to authorize (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve13209 on Thu May 05, 2016 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    the Pentagon before any American troops are deployed. At least then our representatives at least know what's going on (in general terms, at least).

    Congress has the ultimate power of the purse. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 05, 2016 at 07:04:10 PM EST
    If the majority of its members object, they can withhold funding from the administration and the Pentagon. Congress further has an obligation to provide oversight over the executive branch. Perhaps its members need to start exercising that discretion more often than they actually have, and look into things that actually matter, rather than engage in politically motivated snipe hunts such as Benghazi, Whitewater, etc.

    Anyway, while a demand such as yours sounds great in theory, it would ultimately prove unwieldy and foolhardy in actual practice, were the President -- who's also, let's remember, the Commander in Chief of the military -- required to seek without exception the prior concurrence of Congress before ordering the deployment of American forces abroad for whatever reason.

    The President needs to be able to act swiftly in critical situations when it's required, and it serves no useful purpose to hamstring the White House in that regard, particularly when Congress has other means available by which it can -- and should -- assert its own authority and hold the administration accountable.

    For the record, in our country's entire 239-year history, Congress has authorized eleven resolutions formally declaring a state of war between the United States and another country:

    • June 18, 1812 against Great Britain;
    • May 13, 1846 against Mexico;
    • April 25, 1898 against Spain;
    • April 6, 1917 against Germany,
    • December 7, 1917 against Austria-Hungary;
    • December 8, 1941 against Japan;
    • December 11, 1941 against Germany
    • December 11, 1941 against Italy;
    • June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria;
    • June 5, 1942 against Hungary; and
    • June 5, 1942 against Romania.

    Further, Congress has formally authorized the prospective use of military force overseas by the United States on 14 separate occasions:

    • July 9, 1798 against France (Quasi-War);
    • February 6, 1802 against Tripoli (First Barbary War);
    • May 10, 1815 against Algiers (Second Barbary War);
    • March 3, 1819 against "pirates and slave traders" (Act of 1819, Relative to the Slave Trade);
    • May 11, 1860 against Paraguay (The Paraguay Expedition);
    • April 22, 1914 against Mexico (The Occupation of Veracruz);
    • July 21, 1918 against Russia (as part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War);
    • March 9, 1957 against the political opposition in Lebanon;
    • August 6, 1964 against the Viet Cong and North Vietnam (Vietnam War);
    • September 29, 1983 against Syria and the Druze militias in Lebanon;
    • January 12, 1991 against Iraq (Persian Gulf War);
    • September 14, 2001 against al Qa'eda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (afghanistan War); and
    • March 3, 2003 against Iraq (Iraq War).

    And while Congress never expressly authorized military engagement on the part of the United States in the following instances, it nevertheless appropriated the funding necessary for American forces to act under the authority of eight different United Nations Security Council resolutions:

    • July 7, 1950 against North Korea and later,  China (UNSC Res. 84);
    • June 4, 1993 against Bosnian Serb forces (UNSC Res. 770, 776 and 836);
    • August 1, 2003 in Liberia (UNSC Res. 1497);
    • April 30, 2004 in Haiti (UNSC Res. 1529 and 1542); and
    • March 17, 2011 in Libya (UNSC Res. 1973).

    On July 4, 1861, Congress granted to President Abraham Lincoln the authority and funding necessary to deploy the U.S. Navy and up to 500,000 federal troops for the expressed purpose of "suppressing insurrectionist elements in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas."

    By refusing to ever reference the Confederate States of America directly by name, Lincoln and Congress effectively kept the U.S. Civil War from being recognized internationally as a conflict subject to the rules of war and by 1863-64, the provisions of the First Geneva Convention.