The stealth characteristics are only needed on the early days of a conflict (or) when a viable air or surface threat exists. Once the threat from SAMs or other fighters is reduced, a greater load can be carried by utilising the wing pylons, at the expense of the now less critical stealth features.
I personally wouldn't risk something that expensive to fly no matter how reduced Military Intelligence claims the danger is. The F-22 isn't designed for fighting ground targets. It can if someone else lasers the target for the pilot. It has to rely on its stealth to combat smaller, less advanced, fighters.
Meant more not sacrificing the stealth ability for more weapons load when a Stealth Eagle could do the same job better and would be more financially responsible. I don't think there would be any response those responsible could give that would placate the policy makers and politicians into not requesting their heads on a platter.