March 2009 Archives

Barry Ritholtz asks an excellent question: why is taxpayer money going to bail out what is essentially a hedge fund?

I applaud Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) for continuing his efforts to seek a real investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks by introducing the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act of 2009.

It is long past time to have an investigation of the incident, why it was not prevented, and the questionable investigation into it.

Rep. Holt does an excellent job of explaining all of the issues into this seemingly forgotten terrorist attack on our nation.

Glenn Greenwald also discusses the legislation and recaps all of the important work and analysis he has done on the anthrax terror attack case. He argues, correctly in my view:

The importance of full disclosure of all facts surrounding the anthrax attacks cannot be overstated. This was the opposite of a run-of-the-mill crime. To the contrary, the anthrax attacks -- by design, as everyone acknowledges -- had an immense political impact on the country. Contrary to endless claims from Bush supporters that Bush allowed no more terrorist attacks on "the homeland" after 9/11, the anthrax attack was exactly such a terrorist attack.

For reasons I've detailed previously, I actually believe that the anthrax attacks played a larger role than the 9/11 attack itself in elevating America's fear levels to hysterical heights, which in turn put the citizenry into the state of frightened submission that enabled so many of the subsequent events of the Bush presidency. The 9/11 attacks appeared to be a one-time extraordinary event, but it was multi-staged anthrax attacks -- coming a mere four weeks later -- that normalized and personalized the Terrorist threat.

The anthrax attacks must be removed from our society's blind spot and given the proper focus such events deserve. The fact that we have so many questions today -- over seven years later -- is unacceptable.

Wow.

Barry Ritholz makes an observation that gave me pause: our stock indexes are now at, or below, the level they were on December 6, 1996 -- the day Alan Greenspan gave his "irrational exuberance" speech.

Josh Marshall is correct to point out the hypocrisy of the grandstanding comments by leading bankers who now say it was a mistake to take bailout money.

As Marshall notes:

It seems to me that if you're saying it was a mistake and you're going to give it back and then you say you're not going to pay it back for years, I think that means it wasn't a mistake since obviously you cannot make do without the money. What am I missing?

The fact that we were stupid to believe -- and perhaps continue to believe -- that these leading financial minds have much of a clue at all.

So, it's simple. If you say it was a mistake to take the money, let's get a check to the Treasury now. Today. Not in two years.

Or just shut up.