Response to Kleiman

I never responded to Mark Kleiman's response to my response to his response to Stephen Bainbridge's comments on Cardinal Martino's comments on the capture of Saddam. Or something like that.

Anyway, here's Kleiman's substantive point:

I agree with Lewis and Buck that "loving" your neighbor or your enemy doesn't mean "feeling fond of him or saying he is nice when his not." But surely it does mean, as Lewis says it does, "wishing his good." In no possible universe could being humliated [sic] on worldwide TV count as "good" for Saddam Hussein.

I disagree. Being humiliated -- being taken down a notch -- might be the best thing for someone who was so self-absorbed and conceited that he covered his entire country with statues and posters of himself. Christ did say, after all, that "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled." (I'm sure Christ didn't contemplate that the humbling would occur at the hands of the United States Special Forces -- but they'll do in a pinch.)