RE: Wikileaks

>I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that
>is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government.  I do think
>where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is
>important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short
>shelf life in all cases.

Most of the critiques I read that see the leaks as harmful emphasize the
fact that statements made to the US by various people in confidence are now
out in the open.  An example of this is the King of Saudi Arabia's repeated
worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon.  This included his suggestion that
the US bomb their facilities and his promise to provide China with oil in
case Iran cuts off their oil supply after they failed to veto sanctions.

Or the embarrassment for the leader of Yeman who protested the US bombing of
AQ positions, while quietly telling the US he had to be "shocked shocked to
find gambling at Rick's Café Americana" but that was just a necessary
political fig leaf.

So, the real damage is that it is now reasonable to conclude that it is
impossible for the US to keep anything told it in confidence.  

One very interesting fact is that they didn't come up with smoking guns
about secret illegal activities that Cheney authorized.  I actually expected
to see something like that...if it's there, I haven't seen where it was
reported.

Dan M.