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.
It is, IMO, essential that there be convincing evidence supporting the idea that Iraq poses a real threat directly to the US. We *must not* act without that sort of evidence, not just due to Consitutional concerns, but also future world opinion and domestic opinion as well.
The point I was making is that it is worth it to compromise some of our intelligence assets of that is what it takes to provide American citizens convincing proof that we must go to war to protect ourselves from Iraq. We can bring them to the US and give them new identities if necessary. A war against Iraq isn't going to be one of subtlty with spys and counter-spys, but one of brute force with the US doing the pounding and Iraq taking the beating: we a great enough technological edge in real-time intel-gathering, that our war isn't going to depend on agents in enemy territory giving us the latest skinny on what the enemy is up to; we'll know their every military move as soon as they make it.
So, I don't care if Saddam knows we are coming. It is like seeing a giant tidal wave coming towards you while you are walking on the beach: you can run wherever you want, but you're still going to die just as certainly as if you stand still. Once the US military starts, Saddam has no way of stopping it, and he knows this.
So, to summarize (I'm tired and I tend to ramble when I'm tired): It is more important from a moral and Constitutional standpoint that the people of the United States know, without any doubts, exactly why we are going to war, so that when Johnny or Jane get blown away in action, and the dreaded letter or visit arrives, they will know that he or she died protecting the country, not for oil, not so that Bush could get revenge for Saddam trying to take out his father, not to stablize the region, not to instill democracy on a nation that doesn't apparently want it (or maybe can't deal with it). The *only* reason we should be initiating a war is self-defense, IMO.
Also, since you mentioned my comments about a declaration of war: only the Senate, not the whole congress, has that power. A declaration of war is *not* a resolution of force. It is pretty specific as to just who we are going to war against and why. We have not fought a declared war since WWII.
You can find on-line copies of some of our previous declarations by doing a search via google or a similar search engine.
Tuor