Is Wikileaks a smoke curtain?

Everyone is entitled to be skeptical about everything and the leaks regarding diplomats around the world don't really reveal relevant information about what is actually taking place and who is behind it, but is more based on personal attacks which are more reminiscent of a soap opera rather than serious international affairs. It is very doubtful that Berlusconi, Merkel, Westerwelle, Sarkozy, Preval (all of which share good relations with the United States) will mind being called the things they were called, yet this is the greatest show on Earth being presented as ultra-secret files, as if Berlusconi's sex scandals weren't spread by the media on an almost weekly basis, or as if Westerwelle and all  of these politicians were highly popular or accepted in their countries, something which is curiously not the case of almost all of these political figures (apparently not coincidentally either).


It shouldn't be so extraordinary to ask oneself if this is just a smoke curtain to distract people from the relevant things going on by making a big media show out of nothing, because it is very possible that all of these diplomats did not only previously know what was going to take place, but that they also agreed on it for the important events and changes they are making  in their countries to be lost among the big superficial drama in the news. It could even help them acquire the popular support they don't have, instead of potentially stirring conflict with the US. Big media shows are the way politics operate to distract the masses while governments do and undo(See the Chilean miners showcase)


A very good example of this leak being a smoke curtain is it taking place exactly yesterday, Haitian Election Day amid a cholera outbreak that killed already over 1,500 people, while many were protesting, plus allegations of fraud and irregularities not only by citizens, but by 12 out of 18 candidates themselves. In the meantime, everyone was too busy reading the leaks and the" big nasty thing" a US diplomat said about Preval.


Regarding Honduras, ambassador Llorens didn't really reveal anything most of us didn't know and the US official stance was never really inconsistent with its actions, since the Library of Congress report on the coup determines it as "constitutional". One could even dare to say that this leak whitewashes Llorens(and even the US's in general) role during the coup putting him as a guy "who knew what was right" but was almost like a victim of the whole situation, unrelated to the "inevitable" circumstance that was going on around him, when some of  his statements during this time showed the opposite: indirectly justifying the coup by implying that Zelaya had provoked the whole thing.


We must also remember that yesterday, November 28, Haitians are not the only one "celebrating" elections, but it  is the first anniversary of the Honduran fraudulent elections which took the Lobo coup continuation government to office, elections with results that were fully recognized by the United States, its Secretary of State even pushing for recognition in several Latin American tours, so there is no contradiction here. The CIA factbook has allegedly real data on it, so why would a "secret" cable contain false information on it? Would it have made a difference had this cable been published earlier, now, or in a few years? Surely not. After all, Llorens did say it was a coup all along as did the US.


Some people might argue that "it damages the US more than it benefits it" and see this as a measure of reliability, but I am not so sure about that, because in games, sometimes players risk some things, or even make many concessions or apparent concessions in order to gain advantages in the long term. Any thinking human being can observe that The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel are not really exactly anti status quo media, but the opposite, just with a slight touch of "progressive" make-up here and there. They are big business too and very likely, just like so many of them, not quite at the service of the vast majorities, but of their and their clients' own interests. As far as we know, this might all be unilateral. Skepticism will never ever hurt, even if there is no evidence for now. Time will tell.