Demand answers on anthrax probe

8/10/08
How did we forget about anthrax?
For years, we’ve heard defenders of the Bush administration’s record argue that, despite anything else you could say, at least the U.S. hadn’t been hit by another terrorist attack since 9/11. But it’s not true, and never was.
The weeks following the destruction of the World Trade Center were terrifying in their own right, with the deadliest bioterror attacks on U.S. soil killing five people. With intended targets including top government officials and media celebrities, it was a deeply disturbing period in our history. No one knew what to expect next.
And the pain hit close to home. One victim, surely unintended, was Oxford resident Ottilie Lundgren, whose mail apparently garnered a miniscule amount of anthrax in a sorting facility.
For the families of those targeted and killed, of course, the incident has never faded from memory. But for the rest of the country, the anthrax attacks have been obscured by years of war and questionable antiterrorism strategies. It seemed likely we would never know who was responsible.
But that memory blackout exploded last month with word that the government had identified a person they said committed the acts, a top scientist at a U.S. Army facility who apparently committed suicide before evidence against him could be presented. The government wants to present this case as closed — the alleged perpetrator, Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, acted alone, the U.S. says.
But despite the release of documents and evidence that seem to point in that direction, all questions have not been answered. To assuage public doubts, investigators should welcome and Congress should demand a full airing of the probe’s particulars, from 2001 until today.
And investigators must answer some questions, including:

• Why did the probe take so long? Apparently, only a few people had access to the strain of toxin in question, which was identified soon after the attacks.
• If Ivins was as mentally unstable as investigators say, how did he maintain high-level clearance to deal with such materials on a regular basis? What kind of screening process is used to keep these poisons out of unstable hands?
• What of initial reports from government sources that linked the anthrax attacks to Saddam Hussein? Such rumors from high levels helped prepare the nation for war in Iraq — an outcome we continue to pay the price for all these years later.

The federal government’s reputation for truth-telling is in tatters, and a full airing of this investigation’s particulars could go a long way toward changing that. The country has a right to know what happened, and could benefit from knowing the government got this one right — assuming, of course, it did.