As it turns out, all the pundits arguing that Julian Assange had blood on his hands after the release of diplomatic cables were wrong:

The damage caused by the WikiLeaks controversy has caused little real and lasting damage to American diplomacy, senior state department officials have concluded. It emerged in private briefings to Congress by top diplomats that the fallout from the release of thousands of private diplomatic cables from all over the globe has not been especially bad. This is in direct opposition to the official stance of the White House and the US government which has been vocal in condemning the whistle-blowing organisation and seeking to bring its founder, Julian Assange, to trial in the US.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews told Reuters news agency that the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. "I think they want to present the toughest front they can muster," the official said. The official implied that the WikiLeaks fiasco was bad public relations but had little concrete impact on policy.

It was Sarah Palin who said of Assange that "he is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands." If "blood libel" meant what she thinks it does she'd be guilty of it.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.