Please, take a breath, and explain it to this person. If I'm way behind on this, the universities I went to have some splainin' to do... It's really quite simple: If you think you're going to war with Iraq, you don't reveal to Iraq a) what you know about their stuff, and b) how you learned about it. And to prevent Iraq from knowing, you don't tell anybody who doesn't need to know it.
As for Daschle, he's lying, and Rumsfeld has called him on it. As for the Senate leadership, they've seen it too.
Bottom line: we're not at the point yet where releasing that info has no effect. For a lot of the info, we may never reach that point.
I can envision a scenario where we know the locations of some real nasty stuff but are not going to reveal these because doing so would alert the Iraqi's to move them. Further, to tell the inspectors about them would tip off the Iraqi's as to where/who the leaks were coming from. So we may be giving the inspectors isolated, relatively low-level information that won't compromise sources but eventually will have the desired smoking gun effect. When the war starts, our priorities will be to capture/isolate/destroy the worst locations so that Iraq can't move or use the weapons within.