I don't care if he knows what we know. Let him know it. What is he going to do once we declare war on him? It is *far* more important that we the people be convinced of the necessity of going to war than Saddam might learn that we have some goods on him.
Saddam can't stop us in an outright war, especially not without weapons of mass destruction, and not even with them if we're determined. The question, to me, is one of convincing the American people to go to war. Once that is done, Saddam's fate is sealed.
Tuor
Go there to read an interview with Caner. You may not like the interviewER but that's beside the point.
Isn't it possible that the people on the ground providing the information might care a great deal what Saddam knows we know? I'm no expert on gathering intelligence, but it seems plausible that some of this information you require could compromise assets that are very difficult to replace.
I agree that there should be a declaration of war in Iraq's case before significant action is taken. I'd suggest that since Congress must make the declaration, then only Congress need be privy to the info, but I'm sure anything of interest would be leaked within the day.
Frankly, a good deal of the information you claim to require seems to me to already be public knowledge. Some of the rest would at best be strictly emotional, on a "wag the dog" level (video of weaponry aimed at Israel? Anything they have could be retargeted rapidly. I wouldn't feel at ease if all Iraqi technology were aimed at Bagdad right now were I in range). Any public support gained from such "evidence" would likely be ephemeral, especially in the face of US casualties or use of weapons of mass destruction.
A formal declaration, OTOH, provides an inertia that might be more resiliant.