[Prudence]

Actually, I would go so far as to say that it *is* a useful statement.

It is easy to dismissively note that of course Hitler approved of his own actions and considered them "good." It is more complicated to recognize what that means in contemporary life, society, and politics.

Writing off people who have done horrible things as "evil", and ignoring any exploration of their intentions or motivations, invites a reliance on the notion that identifying such people (without the benefit of hindsight) is easy and obvious. Good guys and bad guys don't stroll about wearing convenient name tags. The world is shades of grey. Is Musharraf a good guy who is preventing Islamic radicals from taking power, or a bad guy preventing the spread of democracy? Is Bhutto a shining example of female empowerment in the Muslim world or a famously corrupt politician?

Which isn't to say that I'm suggesting Hitler had a "good" side and was just tragically misunderstood. Rather, it is a lesson to all of us to be mindful of how what is "good" for us may be "bad" for others.

In fact, even something that is completely "good" in the abstract may be "bad" when put into actual practice. We should be vigilant to ensure that our "good" intentions result in "good" result - not results that start of kind of good for us and not for others, and then still a bit good for us but really quite objectionable to others, ending up in really quite repellent any way you look at it.