I am a libertarian (well, a philosophical anarchist, actually) and I favor some sort of government intervention to attempt to avert a financial disaster. Indeed, I would have favored more regulations to rein in the GSEs before the collapse. There is no contradiction here.

Given that you have moral hazard problems created by government, it is not somehow unlibertarian to advocate regulation to reduce excessive risk-taking by government-backed agencies. Ideally, Fannie and Freddie would never have existed. Since they did exist, the second-best case would have been for them to be purely private entities with no implicit government guarantee. The third-best case would have been for them to be purely public entities with no profit motive. The fourth-best case would have been for them to be mixed private-public entities like they were, but subject to stringent oversight. We were in the fifth-best case in which they had a profit motive, moral hazard, and little oversight.

For similar reasons, I favor a bailout. There is a time-consistency problem. The government would like to commit to never bailing anyone out. If it were able to do this, the need for bailouts might not arise. But it cannot commit; since everyone knows the government will bail big financial firms out, it basically has no choice.

None of this in any way contradicts my view that the government should not intervene in housing markets in the first place, that currency competition should exist, that taxes should be much lower, that there should be no government redistribution of incomes, that public schools should be shut down, that there should be no government provision of health care, that the draft should be abolished, that marriage should be unregulated, that prostitution should be legal, or that 12 year olds should legally be allowed to purchase heroin from vending machines.