Ed,
No, this is not insane, it just stupid.
...and there is a big difference?
in·san·i·ty n. pl. in·san·i·ties
Third definition Extreme foolishness; folly.
The degree of "extreme" foolishness in regards to Iraq may depend
how one feels about the lives of our young men who were lost -
compared with the very limited amount of gain we would have had,
even if the war had been the resoudning success that
Cheney-Rumsfeld envisioned.
As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in
discounting enough, the level of ingrained insanity in
government, issuing out of the "red-scare" and "cold-war"
years - when such was actively encouraged - and indeed
promotions within the agency depended to a degree on who was
the most extreme.
The questions I ask in deciding the degree of insanity are:
1. Are the claims clearly at odds with well established reality
or are actions at odds with accepted behavior?
2. Do the claims or actions have a clear benefit to the person
or government making them?
3. Are the claims or actions contradictory within themselves?
Answers of yes, no, yes cause me to suspect insanity. In the
use of explosives to bring down the Towers, I would answer yes,
no, no.
Consequently, I do not think the possibility is based on an
insane act by the government. However, I do not believe such an
act would be possible or would have been contemplated before
911. Now is a different story.
As I said before - FORGET the Twin-Towers and focus solely on
building 7, remember?
This was the building which was not struck by any airliner, and
was some distance away from the Twin-Towers, but yet came down
supposedly due to "fires" of unknown origin (presumably jet fuel
that somehow miraculously escaped burning in the T-Ts, hours
before, remember?
This was the building in which zero lives were lost and that
contained only CIA, government and financial offices, AND also
contained vaults which supposedly contained several billion
dollars in untraceable wealth, remember?
This was the only steel-framed building in the history of
architecture to fall due soley to fires, remember?
This was also the building that firefighters who were on the scene
claimed repeatedly that they could have saved, had they not been
explicitly ordered to leave, remember?
This was also the building that firefighters who were on the scene
claimed that after having been explicitly ordered to leave, they
heard muffled explosions, remember?
Hmmm... Sometimes, perhaps... intentional memory-lapse for the
purpose of making a point which is not substantiated by the
precise evidence at hand, can disguise as more than the
counter-balance to a too-vivid imagination...
...some might call it either obstinance or outright gullibility,
no?
Jones
