I suppose that even the best and brightest among us can get caught up in the politics of the moment and are capable of mean-spirited, if not brutal, overreaction from time to time. However, when David Broder succumbs to such indiscretion, as he did in his column "The Longer Edwin Meese Stays" {op-ed, Nov. 10}, a response is compelled.

As one winds through the Broder piece, it becomes apparent that his call for the attorney general to step aside is without merit and unencumbered with a full knowledge of the facts.

Broder demonstrates the "hit and run" technique of raising a matter, like "investigations by two special prosecutors," while curiously avoiding important and relevant facts -- that is, the first independent counsel concluded his review with a report favorable to Ed Meese (why is it that when no wrongdoing is found by counsel independent of the political process, such a result is "overlooked"), and the second probe was requested by the attorney general himself.

Our memories are then sorely tested with Broder's reference to "the U.S.-Libyan aerial dogfight in the first year of the presidency" and the great hype over whether the president was awakened in timely fashion. Broder labels this a "blunder," once again allowing pertinent details to elude him -- e.g., two Libyan jet fighters were destroyed with no U.S. casualties. Furthermore, the president was awakened at 4:28 a.m. as soon as all the facts of the incident were available. One would think that as strong a word as "blunder" would be saved for truly disastrous events -- perhaps the Bay of Pigs or other real and lasting failures.

Broder even attempts an appeal, albeit backhanded, to "the Republicans and the conservative movement" over the handling of the background investigation of Judge Douglas Ginsburg, alleging that the attorney general "failed to discover or to alert the president to other facts whose disclosure forced Ginsburg to withdraw" and what Broder describes as "the quick revelation that dope, divorce and abortion -- the unholy trio of threats to their cherished 'family values' -- had all been at one time or another familiar parts of the life style or medical experience of Ginsburg and his physician wife." Of course, this is a low blow -- aimed at Meese and Ginsburg.

Broder knows that Ginsburg's background was investigated several times in recent years, both by the FBI and by the U.S. Senate. But we hear no castigation of the former FBI director or clamoring for resignations by members of the Senate. In fact, he is silent because such a demand would be preposterous. It is equally so with respect to the attorney general. Nonetheless, Broder's fervor and pillorying are reserved for Ed Meese.

Broder asserts that Meese "pushed hard for Judge Ginsburg, against the advice of the White House chief of staff." But Meese and Howard Baker have publicly stated that the reported rift did not and does not exist. Why, then, the insistence and repetition of this charge?

Broder next refers to Ginsburg's professional record as "extremely sketchy" -- a description intended to further raise eyebrows over his selection and the attorney general's role -- citing his "lowest possible rating" by the American Bar Association when he was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But Broder neglects history.

Associate Justice William O. Douglas, younger than Ginsburg at the time of his confirmation, did not have a long record of experience. Perhaps Douglas was fortunate that the American Bar Association's current rating procedures did not exist and could not serve as a condition precedent to confirmation. Thomas Jefferson was in his early thirties when asked to draft a Declaration of Independence. Jefferson didn't have a 20- or 30-year record of experience. Neither did Robert Kennedy, who was also in his thirties throughout his tenure as attorney general of the United States. If we accept the line of argumentation proffered by Broder, our past demonstrates that we would deny ourselves the service of enthusiastic, inspired and talented people.

Finally, Broder's contempt for Attorney General Meese, President Reagan and the administration generally is best discerned by the artillery of words he discharges throughout the text of his column: "appalling ineptitude," "towering ineptitude," "disaster," "incompetence," "blunders," "bungled," "ever-detached," "feeble" and, of course, "mismanaged." I suggest these are terms that more accurately describe certain opinion writers, and I am confident that the last year of this administration will be very productive, successful, invigorating and historic -- like the previous seven years. -- Mark R. Levin The writer is special counsel to the attorney general.