I must say that I was not surprised to read that the damage wrought by the WikiLeaks revelations was considered limited when politicians talk about those revelations behind closed doors, according to Reuters. No administration, Democratic or Republican, ever wants transparency. I have long assumed that there are things that our government does in our name that would make me scream "WTF," and we will likely never know the full extent of those dealings. But, I have to admit that I do find it interesting to learn about some of those things. I think that transparency, up to a point, does in fact help to keep government honest (I would assume that those on the right cheering the pending investigations of Rep. Issa regarding the Obama administration would love to have a Julian Assange of their own).
From what I've read, I seems to me that WikiLeaks is not all that different from investigative journalism. In an earlier post, I agreed with Salon's Glenn Greenwald that we have to ask if investigative journalists should be held to the same standards as people are holding Assange and WikiLeaks. What really is different about what he is doing, when compared with others in American media?
I don't appreciate the idea that we are being lied to by our government. I didn't appreciate it during the Bush Administration, and I won't begin appreciating it in the Obama administration. There is nothing wrong with saying that you (the administration) does not agree with WikiLeaks tactics and such, but it is another to deceive the public about the actual danger WikiLeaks presents, as Greenwald points out.