On March 9, this newspaper printed a letter from Sandra Page about the recent criminal convictions of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby (“Sandbox games in Washington”).

Notwithstanding the offensive language that dominated that piece, not the least of which was her reference twice to “these idiots,” which is language that — at least in my view — has no place in a civil public debate, she overlooks some very inconvenient but important facts.

Although many Bush administration apologists have made the repeated claim that Ms. Plame’s status as a covert agent for the CIA was “common knowledge in Washington” — as is also repeated, but not supported by any evidence, in Ms. Page’s letter — I, for one, have seen no substantiation whatsoever to support that claim. To the extent she was “known” around Washington, both her friends and acquaintances have confirmed to many different media sources that until her identity as a CIA operative was published by the press, they understood her to be employed by energy consulting firm Brewster-Jennings (actually a covert CIA “front” operation). If Ms. Plame’s friends knew nothing about her work at the CIA, it seems unlikely that those less intimately acquainted with her would know differently. Furthermore, in an apparent attempt to imply that Ms. Plame was somehow herself making a public issue out of her covert status before her involuntary exposure, Ms. Page refers to an appearance by Ms. Plame in Vanity Fair. Trouble is, that occurred long after her first public exposure by Bush administration officials as a CIA operative via Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003, “Mission to Niger” column.

On March 6, Mr. Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers on four separate felony counts: one count of obstruction of justice, one count of making false statements and two counts of perjury.

Those are all very serious crimes. But since Ms. Page suggests that they were not worthy of prosecution because they were not also accompanied by indictments for the more “serious” underlying charges in this case (those related to “knowingly” exposing Ms. Plame’s identity as a covert agent), I feel compelled to point out what to many seems obvious. There have been a number of theories put forth to explain Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision not to pursue such additional charges. One school of thought: He anticipated substantial difficulties in successfully prosecuting such a case constrained by the rules and confronted by the risks to national security associated with introducing the classified information into evidence necessary for a conviction. Another: Mr. Fitzpatrick felt that he would not be able to prove that Mr. Libby had been explicitly informed of Ms. Plame’s covert status. That Mr. Libby was not indicted on additional charges is not evidence that he did not commit other wrongful acts. Mr. Fitzgerald has made a number of public statements that strongly suggest he believes larger crimes were, in fact, committed in this case. Regrettably, Mr. Fitzgerald is, perhaps, the only person who will ever fully understand exactly why he chose not to also pursue additional charges against Mr. Libby. But Mr. Fitzgerald clearly believed he could show that Mr. Libby had violated the law. So Mr. Fitzgerald, as is a common practice in many criminal proceedings, brought the most serious charges that he felt were appropriate to the circumstances.

Additionally, in an apparent attempt to save his own skin, Mr. Libby remained mute while New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent months in jail for refusing to name him as her source of information about Ms. Plame’s identity. Apparently similarly motivated, Mr. Libby also falsely named NBC’s Tim Russert, among others, as the source of this information. This suggests strongly that Mr. Libby’s actions were not nearly as benign as Ms. Page would apparently like us to believe.

As a people, we hold dear the notion that we are governed by the rule of law. The crimes for which Mr. Libby has been convicted tear at our social fabric under any circumstances. They are especially grievous when committed by a public official sworn to uphold those laws; more still when that public official is also an attorney, as is Mr. Libby.

To dismiss the prosecution of Mr. Libby’s criminal acts as “playground antics” in an attempt to trivialize Mr. Fitzgerald’s efforts to preserve values that the vast majority of the American public holds dear is offensive, at best. Perhaps Ms. Page thinks the crimes that Mr. Libby has committed are no big deal. However, I think I am joined by the majority of Americans in my view that Mr. Libby’s actions were disgraceful and that “these idiots,” as Ms. Page refers to them, are to be applauded for bringing Mr. Libby to justice for the crimes that he has committed.

(Gifford lives in Napa.)