Q: This began as a leak, yet no one was charged with leaking, is it finished?

Fitzgerald: It's not over. But the substantial work is concluded. Grand jury won't be continued. But we'll keep a grand jury open to consider other matters. In this case, the damage was done to all of us. Why was this info going out? Was the damage intended? I can't tell you Scooter's motives - it prevents us from finding out why this leak happened. Compromising national security information is a very serious mater, and the need to get to the bottom is extremely important - anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime. If what we allege in the indictment is true, he is charged with a very very serious crime.

"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

"I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it"

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it," Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."