I think Lazarus is threading a bogus needle there.

Yes, it's a fallacy to assume that any crime on the part of Libby & Rove (or whoever) proves every conjecture about their motives anyone might have. But if you've done something wrong, it's little or no defense that you were once a good person, now led astray-- unless you yourself make the argument.

We don't know exactly what Libby has said behind closed doors, so maybe he's copped to everything, in which case, okay, let's keep in mind that he might be an essentially decent person. And of course, there's a possibility he neither leaked information illegally nor obstructed the investigation, and so has nothing to confess. But Lazarus seems to be postulating for the sake of argument that Libby did something wrong, and saying that even so, Libby's probable beliefs about such misdeeds long before the fact (i.e. "He probably didn't go into public service wanting to do things like this.") count more than his willingness to actually perform them AND more than his retrospective beliefs about their justifiability. I call bullshit.

To put it another way, covering something up is a gamble: you increase your culpability in return for a lower chance of having to face judgment.

(This is all also assuming a rightful authority. Obviously I'm not condemning members of the Chinese democracy movement for having secret meetings, etc.)

Perhaps, but I don't think Lazarus was trying to exculpate Libby in any way by discussing his potential moral soundness in the past. Instead, I think he's trying to deflect the 'Republicans are monsters' meme that typically runs through liberal communities. As in, by viewing these higher-ups as flawed humans rather than evil-doers, we can still be just as successful in legally bringing them down while not alienating the more reasonable (maybe read: naive) American population.

But hey, when it comes to Karl Rove, he just might be wrong.

"In contemporary politics, liberals think conservatives are destroying the country with evil hearts through evil means, while conservatives think liberals would destroy the country through decrepit thinking and weak-kneed policies. Doubt does not flourish in this toxic environment; nor does an attention to those facts that might not support one's passionate political position."
-I think Mr. Lazarus is making the situation seem more black-and-white than it actually is in order to put forth his argument. I'm having trouble deciding the one point I want to make, so I'll go with: similar to Aaron's argument above, what's the difference between openly diabolical intentions and a monstrously blind insistence on the moral righteousness of your position? And also, it is a big leap to assume that everyone who would lambast the current administration would hold up the Clinton crew as an emblem of great governance.