Anthrax case solved?

I have little interest in conspiracy theories but I hate the idea of finding out later that I was being lied to and there were obvious clues at the time that I could have picked up on but did not. The current push by the MSM (main-stream media) to present the anthrax attacks of 2001, a couple of weeks after 9/11, as being the work of one geeky scientist while completely ignoring what was being said about those attacks at the time is setting off alarm bells in my head as it should in yours also.

As reported by Glenn Greenwald:

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.

If the attacks were the work of one weird guy who were all those "well-placed" sources who were telling lies to ABC? If investigators are really trying to figure out who was responsible for the attacks why are they not investigating that part of the story? Why isn't ABC embarrassed about having reporting lies? Why are the news stories focusing almost totally on the personality of the alleged attacker and completely ignoring how the attacks were used as justification for the invasion of Iraq?