Sure, you are certainly free to do that. The question is, is it useful? Is Bush insane? How about Kissinger? Nixon? Sharon? Harry Truman? Is the act of dropping the A-bomb on two Japanese cities insane? It was certainly 'rational' in that it served to threaten the Russians.
In criticizing Chris, you seem to be equating 'rational' with 'good.' But if you look at things in class terms, a leader can be perfectly rational and sensible acting in the interests of his class (take Bush, for example), which can mean catastrophe for another class. Men act in rational ways to oppress women. Beating us up, for example, is not insane, it's part of a rational calculation that we will be more obedient afterwards. Doesn't make it less bad, in ways you could say it's worse since it's an exercise of class power not a random bad act which has no other effect.
>After all, most human beings don't act upon
>the impulse to murder a single human being, let alone millions. We
>usually regard such callousness to human suffering as a sign of severe
>pathology.
Except in times of war, when we regard it as a duty.
You seem to be implying that one individual shot all those people. We're talking about systems here, in which people take orders or don't. That's one good reason this focus on individual pathology is unhelpful. Bush has not shot anyone personally, and is acting rationally (from his own standpoint), but he's just as guilty of war crimes.
Jenny Brown