On 2001-11-29 08:08, Robert wrote:
Subject: The End of Enron

Enron was an old line Houston natural gas company which went into online trading in all commodities in a big way. Using heavily leveraged derivatives positions they thought they could "make money trading anything".

Unfortunately they found they could also loose their shirts trading everything when the market went against them. This is what Steve Puetz was talking about in that post of mine above. Financial derivative exposure is now AT LEAST 100 Trillion dollars (yes, I said $100,000,000,000,000). That's 10 times GDP. If just 10% of it blew up at once in a financial accident Big Al would have to print up TEN TRILLION dollars overnight to cover all the bets and allow all the gamblers to break even.

Enron was a Wall Street darling, its stock was at $80 per share now down to essentially nothing. I remember the Motley Fools were heavily invested in Enron, they used to tout it on their radio show all the time. I guess they are more Fools now than they are Motley.

Bear in mind that not only Enron but MOST major corporations and financial institutions (like your bank) are HEAVILY INVOLVED in the derivatives markets.

actually, if you read carefully the articles in the WSJ describing enron's problems, you will find that their primary problem was not trading losses but in accounting irregularities, failed investments in technology and power and water plants, and just general management misconduct. their trading operations were considered by Dynegy as the most valuable part of their operations. but since the other problems were affecting enron's balance sheet they were perceived as a bad counterparty risk so other firms refused to do business with them thus causing their trading business to diminish substantially. that created a chain of events that has now led to enron's demise.

this is pretty much the same thing that happened with long term capital management. they, like enron, became perceived by the marketplace as a poor counterparty risk so everyone ran from them. but again this is an isolated instance that the market is taking very much in stride.

now it is true that if some global catastrophe were to strike affecting everyone you could have a much wider domino effect take place. but, as i said before, while that is possible it is unlikely considering current global liquidity conditions. however, when conditions do change and the system becomes more vulnerable than it is now then that possibility will become far more ominous than it is at present. but then again, conditions that would likely cause such a domino affect in the derivatives market would also be likely to be causing a seriously negative affect in the general economy of the world whether there was a derivatives market or not.

enjolras,

Long-Term Capital Management's flaw was using its faith in markets to produce profits. It used an equilibrium model to skim off profits when securities prices deviated from their market equilibrium price. Unfortunately, markets don't always self-correct efficiently ,and luckily for us Greenie and his gang didn't take their free-market philosophy too seriously.

Likewise Enron's philosophy was built on the superiority of free markets above all other models. Once again the illusion that free markets act rationally while other agencies such as governments are sub-optimal and inferior was exposed as wishful thinking.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Crispy '59 on 2001-11-29 14:13 ]</font>

On 2001-11-29 14:11, Crispy '59 wrote:
enjolras,

Long-Term Capital Management's flaw was using its faith in markets to produce profits. It used an equilibrium model to skim off profits when securities prices deviated from their market equilibrium price. Unfortunately, markets don't always self-correct efficiently ,and luckily for us Greenie and his gang didn't take their free-market philosophy too seriously.

Likewise Enron's philosophy was built on the superiority of free markets above all other models. Once again the illusion that free markets act rationally while other agencies such as governments are sub-optimal and inferior was exposed as wishful thinking.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Crispy '59 on 2001-11-29 14:13 ]</font>

actually LTCM's flaws were many fold, the worst of which was arrogance. You are correct in their trading modus operandi but they took it to unheard of extremes, sometimes using 100 to 1 or more leverage. they took a couple of billion dollars in capital and leveraged it to over a trillion dollars. any trader who does sizable transactions will tell you that when you trade so large that you literally ARE the market that your eventual downfall is certain, its just a question of when and how hard you fall. but LTCM's principals believed they had the smartest people on the planet running their money and all those nobel prize winning ph.d.s cowed a lot of otherwise conservative financial institutions to let LTCM leverage themselves to a degree that should never have been allowed. its just more proof that in a crisis situation, real world knowledge and experience beats academic theory every time.

and not only was LTCM trading too large but the spreads they were trying for on these transactions, and often they were on very exotic and illiquid securities, were miniscule. a move against their positions of no more than 5% would have been enough to do them irreparable harm, and that is exactly what they got and more.

again, enron's problems are not due to trading losses but due to mismanagement which led to a loss of confidence among other market participants. in fact, when the dust clears the one part of enron's business that is likely to still hold the greatest value is the trading business that it created. someone will very likely move in to take that over soon and it will be even stronger than it was before.

Subject: Enron and LTCM

Your comments on LTCM are my point exactly. How many other LTCMs are out there waiting to go under when the market moves against them? LTCM might have been an extreme case but it's a matter of degree. In a crisis how many other LTCMs might pop up? Could Greenspan bail out TEN LTCMs at once? Twenty? Nobody knows.

As for Enron the post mortem isn't in yet. There are accusations of outright fraud. We'll have to wait till the books are examined by the bankruptcy court to find out what really happened. I wouldn't be suprised if they used some of their other projects to cover up losses in their trading accounts.

On 2001-11-29 16:05, Robert wrote:
Subject: Enron and LTCM

Your comments on LTCM are my point exactly. How many other LTCMs are out there waiting to go under when the market moves against them? LTCM might have been an extreme case but it's a matter of degree. In a crisis how many other LTCMs might pop up? Could Greenspan bail out TEN LTCMs at once? Twenty? Nobody knows.

As for Enron the post mortem isn't in yet. There are accusations of outright fraud. We'll have to wait till the books are examined by the bankruptcy court to find out what really happened. I wouldn't be suprised if they used some of their other projects to cover up losses in their trading accounts.

could greespan bail out 10 LTCMs at once? probably not. that would most likely require a concerted effort by global central banks around the world, and even then it might not be enough. but again, the odds of something that dramatic happening considering current circumstances and safeguards are extremely remote. there is still plenty enough faith among the general populace to continue to believe that the emperor's clothes are indeed real. will that change some time in the future? i think that is inevitable. is it likely to occur within the next 5 or 10 years? i don't think so. within the next 20-25 years? quite likely. but then the earth might also get hit by an asteroid, fall prey to nuclear war,plague, famine, etc. or some other natural disaster too. that does not mean i am going to just hide in bed with the covers over my head and not try and make a buck or two in the current environment!

again, regarding enron, one of the primary factors that caused the merger with Dynegy to fall apart was the perception of counterparty risk had driven everyone away from enron's trading desk in droves and THAT was the crown jewel of enron's empire.with the revenues from that trading desk virtually gone enron's cash flow is sorely depleted.

also, neither LTCM nor enron is an example of some kind of "failure" of the free market. the free market will never be able to put a check on simple human fear and greed taken to extremes. but it does act as an excellent self-correcting mechanism when those emotions get out of hand. LTCM paid the price for its arrogance and so has enron for not maintaining the scrupulous level of accounting and managerial integrity that is required of a reliable counterparty. the role of a good central bank is to act as the "lender of last resort" in such a financial panic to try and turn the tide and stop the panic. most of the time it works. but one day, i agree, the stars will line up just right and nothing will be able to stop the onslaught that is coming. but its just not time yet.

[enjolras:] LTCM paid the price for its arrogance and so has enron for not maintaining the scrupulous level of accounting and managerial integrity that is required of a reliable counterparty.

[Mike:] Um no it didn't. Enron's stockholders (and perhaps creditors) have paid a price. But they had nothing to do with the operation of Enron. Enron's *management* (who was responsible for the company's actions) will pay no price and instead have profited handsomely from their fraudulent activities.

Do you suppose that Enron's CEO and executives will give back the last four years of stock option and bonus income they received for their performance that has now been revealed as fraudulent? Will they pay interest on the money they stole? I very much doubt it. I doubt they will share the fate of Samuel Insull.

In 2000 corporate CEOs were compensated at a rate 511 times higher than the rate for rank-and-file workers. Compare this to 42 times in 1980. Supposedly they deserved this enormous compensation because of the "wealth" they had created. What wealth? There is little sign today of the wealth created by most of these CEO's of these companies. Yet they still have their immense unearned compensation.

Many large corporations bought grossly overpriced stock with company (i.e. shareholders) money in order to prevent dilution by the huge numbers of stock options CEOs granted to each other through their incestuous board memberships. Purchasing your stock at a multiple above the reciprocal of the long term interest rate is a breach of fiduciary responsibility (they should put the cash in bonds instead). Yet dozens of companies were buying their stock at 30+ multiples when interest rates north of 6% could be had.

This operation is simply a direct transfer of the company's profits from the owners to the managers. The majority of shareholders own their shares indirectly through mutual and/or pension funds and so can do nothing about this practice. So while CEOs were boosting profits by holding down costs via globalization, they were simultaneously helping themselves to generous fractions of the profits generated by the shareholder's equity. Not only that, but this diversion of owner income into management's pocket was not recorded as a cost of business in their cost accounting, which executive compensation clearly is. So workers got it in both ends, lower income now and lower income in the future because of impairment of the value of their company stock, which they (unlike management) are prohibited from selling.

My point is the crookedness is not just a few isolated examples. Its inherent in the system. It's also part of the cycle. Just as we repeated all the mistakes made in the 1920's in the 1990's so we will again in the 2060's.

sic transit gloria mundi

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-11-29 17:37 ]</font>

On 2001-11-29 16:05, Robert wrote:
Subject: Enron and LTCM

Your comments on LTCM are my point exactly. How many other LTCMs are out there waiting to go under when the market moves against them? LTCM might have been an extreme case but it's a matter of degree. In a crisis how many other LTCMs might pop up? Could Greenspan bail out TEN LTCMs at once? Twenty? Nobody knows.

As for Enron the post mortem isn't in yet. There are accusations of outright fraud. We'll have to wait till the books are examined by the bankruptcy court to find out what really happened. I wouldn't be suprised if they used some of their other projects to cover up losses in their trading accounts.

Well, here is an article saying that other companies (including IBM) is also likely to vanish.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/665103.asp

On 2001-11-29 08:14, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Emerging markets scuttle down their several black holes.


Mr. Robert Samuelson writes in the 29 November 2001 number of the Washington Post upon another bubble. HTH

_________________

"I often think it odd that [History] should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention." Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey, Chapter XIV

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-11-29 08:16 ]</font>

Sounds like the article has an early 4T ring to it. Looks like we might be entering the big one.

While I can certainly amen your wrath pointed at Samuel Insull, Mike (and others of his ilk at Amazon et al you have noted), and amen your concern for the 'workers' that are getting it at 'both ends,' I think you casually overlook the fact that your party ran this country for eight long years.

Why does Samuel Insull incur your wrath, but Bill Clinton does not? As I recall, you were perfectly willing that his legacy continue via Al Gore last year, Mike. Come on, Insull is a chump compared to the President of the United States, the most powerful chief executive in the world!

I understand that somebody needs to look out for the 'forgotten man,' but lest we forget.. the party whose Gray Champion did not forget has forgot!

IMHO.

On 2001-11-29 17:25, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[enjolras:] LTCM paid the price for its arrogance and so has enron for not maintaining the scrupulous level of accounting and managerial integrity that is required of a reliable counterparty.

[Mike:] Um no it didn't. Enron's stockholders (and perhaps creditors) have paid a price. But they had nothing to do with the operation of Enron. Enron's *management* (who was responsible for the company's actions) will pay no price and instead have profited handsomely from their fraudulent activities.

Do you suppose that Enron's CEO and executives will give back the last four years of stock option and bonus income they received for their performance that has now been revealed as fraudulent? Will they pay interest on the money they stole? I very much doubt it. I doubt they will share the fate of Samuel Insull.

In 2000 corporate CEOs were compensated at a rate 511 times higher than the rate for rank-and-file workers. Compare this to 42 times in 1980. Supposedly they deserved this enormous compensation because of the "wealth" they had created. What wealth? There is little sign today of the wealth created by most of these CEO's of these companies. Yet they still have their immense unearned compensation.

Many large corporations bought grossly overpriced stock with company (i.e. shareholders) money in order to prevent dilution by the huge numbers of stock options CEOs granted to each other through their incestuous board memberships. Purchasing your stock at a multiple above the reciprocal of the long term interest rate is a breach of fiduciary responsibility (they should put the cash in bonds instead). Yet dozens of companies were buying their stock at 30+ multiples when interest rates north of 6% could be had.

This operation is simply a direct transfer of the company's profits from the owners to the managers. The majority of shareholders own their shares indirectly through mutual and/or pension funds and so can do nothing about this practice. So while CEOs were boosting profits by holding down costs via globalization, they were simultaneously helping themselves to generous fractions of the profits generated by the shareholder's equity. Not only that, but this diversion of owner income into management's pocket was not recorded as a cost of business in their cost accounting, which executive compensation clearly is. So workers got it in both ends, lower income now and lower income in the future because of impairment of the value of their company stock, which they (unlike management) are prohibited from selling.

My point is the crookedness is not just a few isolated examples. Its inherent in the system. It's also part of the cycle. Just as we repeated all the mistakes made in the 1920's in the 1990's so we will again in the 2060's.

sic transit gloria mundi

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-11-29 17:37 ]</font>

mike,

i could not agree with you more that most corporate ceo's and executives in this country are grossly overcompensated for what they actually do and the stock option system is probably its most egregious example. the fact is that 70-80% of the reasons why a company's stock price goes up or down has to do with macroeconomic factors over which the management of the company has absolutely no control. now if they were compensated based on how much their stock price outperformed similar companies in their respective industries, or some other similar approach, that would be a much fairer system.

i always remind myself of the comment i once read by peter lynch ( at least i think it was him) that one should always try and select stocks to buy that have businesses that are so easy to run that even a moron could do it... because eventually one probably will. unfortunately they are rarely compensated on that basis. a bull market can make even the worst moron look bright as can a bear market make a genius look dumb.

Marc:

Why does Samuel Insull incur your wrath, but Bill Clinton does not? As I recall, you were perfectly willing that his legacy continue via Al Gore last year, Mike.

Mike can answer for himself, but my own position is that a) Clinton is indeed culpable here, but b) the alternative was (and is) even worse.


Someone considerably to Clinton's left was needed. Unfortunately, no such person was available. To hand the state over to persons with the same economic flaws as Mr. Clinton, only more so, is not a solution.

"Clinton is indeed culpable here, but b) the alternative was (and is) even worse."

Sounds to me like your shine on Bush II has worn off, Mr. Rush.

enjolras wrote "its just more proof that in a crisis situation, real world knowledge and experience beats academic theory every time."

It depends on what academic theory you use. If you use a theory from our esteemed economics departments, the odds are almost 100% that it won't take into consideration how people actually behave. Instead it will assume rational actors which is the only way they can get their equilibrium stories and efficient market theories to work.

Then they will teach our business and economics students this deeply flawed propaganda who will subsequently spout it out in defense of their success. I find it ironic that you seem to be a believer in the academically derived free market theory (which assumes fully rational behavior), yet still disparage academics for not knowing how the "real world" works or how humans actually behave.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Crispy '59 on 2001-11-29 20:01 ]</font>

Um Marc, Insull died in 1938, he has nothing to do with Amazon. Samuel Insull was a utility tycoon who built an overleveraged empire that collapsed over 1929-32. I brought him up because he is famous as the "utility king of the 1920's" sort of like enron today and overleverage and accounting irregularities were his downfall just like enron. Also, the position in the cycle is the same (in my view).

As captain of his ship Insull went down with it, like a captain is supposed to. He gambled and lost everything, dying penniless in 1938. He was a ruthless businessmen and one of the "robber barons" but he sufferred the *same* fate as his stock holders. As a shareholder, I can respect him.

I lost $200,000 several years ago when an obscure company in which I had invested way too much collapsed. The two largest shareholders of the company, both insiders, got crushed along with me (they had not sold anything before the collapse). Thus I can see that *they* are not crooks. It might just be one of those things. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not after their hides.

But these clowns at enron were cashing in options right and left right up to the collapse. They are crooks, plain and simple. These clowns at enron skimmed the profits out while the going was good and left the shareholders holding the bag.

My point was enron's executives deserve Insull's fate far more than Insull did (Insull did create a *real* infrastructure of electric utilities and interurban rail networks, I don't think enron created anything tangible), but in today's jaded environment they will avoid it.

What in the world does Bill Clinton have to do with corporate conduct? I think you might be confusing my poltical views with my views as an investor. When I am investing I wear my capitalist hat (and am sort of a right-winger). After all that's what I am in that role. When I am discussing politics I wear my citizen hat (and am a liberal), because that is the role I play when I am doing that. In a cutural context I wear my "old fart" hat, because when it comes to cultural matters I am conservative.

The name 'Insull' is really of no importance to my point.




I wasn't associating Insull with Amazon. Granted I mistook who Insull [is]was, but in an earlier post this year you had excoriated the CEO of Amazon for exaggerating this and that for the sake of wooing investers. It struck me at that time how ironic it is that one can hold businessmen up to high standards of ethical conduct but give a politican a pass so long as he/she toes a certain ideological line.

What I find dangerous about this kind of thinking is that, while a businessman will eventually have to swim or sink given marketforces, government lives under no such pressure unless voters put on their 'citizens hat' and hold it, and the pols, accountable.

I mean when is the last time you saw a stupid government program (like the mohair subsidy) get the ax under Democrat leadership? Hell no, they'll expand the damn thing in order buy some more votes. Compare this to our Amazon CEO and I'll take my chances with the free market any day of the week with my money because (unless he is just a con man) I can assume that at least he is seeking profit (ie., the best way, thing etc).

The same thing cannot be said of a pol who seeks only to hold office as long as he can.

To conclude, Clinton (and pols in general)should be held to an even higher standard on conduct than a business man because government is intrinsically a protection racket. And pols can only be held accountable by those who desire that the mohair subsidy benefit the greater good.

In my mind Clinton/Gore were a big bag of hot gas. Lies, lies and more lies.

But that didn't matter so long as Democrats thought they were toeing the liberal line.

p.s. That this applies as well to a GOPer is, again, beside the point because my point is conservatives BELIEVE in wearing both 'hats' in both 'matters.'

p.p.s. Thanks for the heads up on 'mohair,' Mr. Saari. I corrected my spelling. :smile:







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2001-11-30 08:08 ]</font>

Mohair [and the bee poop, aka honey]subsidy be back if the Ten Year <S>Manure</S> er, Farm Bill makes it through.

It's part of the War on Terror, The farm money grab from the 30 November 2001 number of the Washington Times shows the way...that's why we yeoman wear tall boots when dealing with our solons. HTH

[Marc} It struck me at that time how ironic it is that one can hold businessmen up to high standards of ethical conduct but give a politican a pass so long as he/she toes a certain ideological line.


[Mike] Whoa, you are way off here. In government I don't have to worry about whether Clinton or Bush is honest. I know there exist HOSTILE Republicans/Democrats in Congress who keep tabs on them. There also exists a Supreme Court, jealous of its perogatives, who can intervene at any time and throw a monkey wrench into an over-enthusiastic executive. This is what checks and balances are all about.

The free market REQUIRES honesty on the part of participants to function. It cannot become perceived to be a rigged game or it will cease to function. This is why libertarians place so much emphasis on fraud. Unlike government there are no checks and balances on a CEO's power. There exists no *hostile* player who has access to corporate information. There is no one to "keep them honest". Hence they have to BE honest. A MUCH higher standard of conduct applies to a businessmen than to a politician.

As an investor I cannot find out what is *really* going on inside a company. I am completely exposed; management is completely free to rip me off, if they so choose. I have no recourse. Investors must either TRUST the CEO or not invest at all. Suppose investors came to believe that businessmen were on average about as honest as politicians. Take a look at the enron chart (ENE). That's what the Dow would look like. There would be a depression from which there could be no recovery. So no, businessmen and politicians can not (and are not) held to the same standards of moral conduct.

If Bush trys a fast one and fails, powerful HOSTILE forces exist that will fall upon him as wolves to take him down. In contrast, Lay gets to keep the bulk of his ill-gotten gains. The free market does not punish the wrongdoer, it punishes those who TRUSTED him. This is why the free market is not a free good, it requires moral men and women to staff it. If you don't have them, you end up with a kleptocracy like Russia.

On 2001-11-29 19:59, Crispy '59 wrote:
enjolras wrote "its just more proof that in a crisis situation, real world knowledge and experience beats academic theory every time."

It depends on what academic theory you use. If you use a theory from our esteemed economics departments, the odds are almost 100% that it won't take into consideration how people actually behave. Instead it will assume rational actors which is the only way they can get their equilibrium stories and efficient market theories to work.

Then they will teach our business and economics students this deeply flawed propaganda who will subsequently spout it out in defense of their success. I find it ironic that you seem to be a believer in the academically derived free market theory (which assumes fully rational behavior), yet still disparage academics for not knowing how the "real world" works or how humans actually behave.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Crispy '59 on 2001-11-29 20:01 ]</font>

crispy,

apparenntly we are speaking of two different definitions of "free market". i hardly believe that the free market is completely rational or efficient. however, on the whole, i do believe that it is MORE rational and more efficient than most any economic scheme that a government body can come up with. but how in the world can you say free markets are rational when they are composed of irrational human beings who often let their emotions get the best of them? perhaps you are getting the thoughts that the free market is more rational on the whole than government policy with the efficient market hypothesis.

the problem with government intervention in markets often lies in that sometimes their policies work, sometimes they don't and have unintended harsh consequences. and sometimes those consequences are delayed for many years. as an example, the fact that the world economy no longer operates with any specie standard, but is a complete fiat based system now, is, i contend, largely responsible for the level of prosperity in the developed world since the 1930s, and particularly since the 1970s, and for the fact that there has been no serious depression or serious deflation since that time. but eventually all the debt that inflation has caused will come back to haunt us because the economy was not allowed to find its normal level of equilibrium because it was distorted by such a governmental policy.

it is certainly true though that people do not act rationally all the time. and thank God for that fact! otherwise, i would never be able to make any money! :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-11-30 09:21 ]</font>

GDP figures in third quarter has been revised to show a shrinkage of 1.1%

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...-11-30-gdp.htm

Mike Alexander writes, "Whoa, you are way off here. In government I don't have to worry about whether Clinton or Bush is honest. I know there exist HOSTILE Republicans/Democrats in Congress who keep tabs on them. There also exists a Supreme Court, jealous of its perogatives, who can intervene at any time and throw a monkey wrench into an over-enthusiastic executive. This is what checks and balances are all about."



So I guess we can blame 911 on those "[un]HOSTILE Republicans/Democrats in Congress" who didn't "keep tabs on" our former Coward in Chief:

Clinton Has No Clothes
What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.

"Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else."

"Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too."

Much as Byron York of the National Review would like Clinton to be judged on the 9/11 attack -- and much as one might make the case that he should, just as Calvin Coolidge should have been judged on the Depression -- it won't happen.


To all except the indefatigably obsessed Clinton-hounds on the right, the former president has become an irrelevancy. If the manner in which Mr. Bush gained the White House has ceased to be an issue in the smoke and rubble of the WTC attack -- if that far more relevant slate has been wiped clean -- how much more so the actions and inactions of his predecessor.


I might possibly defend Mr. Clinton on the grounds that serious action to confront international terrorism was no more doable in the Third Turning than the necessary restructuring of our trade policies or the weaning of our economy from fossil fuels, for both of which failures I would otherwise condemn him. And it's a valid defense, though that doesn't change the fact that action should have been taken.


But it doesn't really matter, because, except by a smattering of right-leaning intellectuals, he will never be accused in the first place.

Search the EWG Farm Subsidy Database


The progressive Environmental Working Group has catalogued the shoats feeding at the Federal pap. You can find the your local porkers by Zip Code or State and then County [Minnesota, St. Louis for example] who are part of the campaign upon Terror. HTH

Flash...
<HTML>
<FONT SIZE="+3"><center>Rush Defends Clinton</FONT></center>
<FONT SIZE="+1"><center>Stops Short of Blaming GOP for 9/11 Deaths</FONT></center></HTML>
Says Mr. Clinton couldn't do anything about international terrorism because USA in a Third Turning.

The amazing thing is that anyone would think "Rush Defends Clinton" deserves that kind of large type.


Or that anything else about Clinton does.


Marc, you're irrationally obsessed. Really.

It's true, though, that I would "stop short" of blaming the GOP for 9/11 deaths.


The closest I'd come to doing so is a comparison between Osama bin Laden and certain GOP supporters. Which is rather like blaming American anti-semites of the 1940s for the Holocaust. The most you can say is that you wouldn't put similar actions past them.


And indeed I would not.