I don't think anyone missed any of these. We've known about them for a while now (except for Thailand but everyone knew about it before this article was written).

The most interesting part of this story, passed over all too soon, is mention of the way the New York Times and the Washington Post have gone to water, and aren't publishing Wikileaks any more -- this despite the fact that none of the leaks already published from this source have been proved mistaken or fabricated. The first squawks from the White House and Foggy Bottom were silenced after only a few days. The leaks were real leaks of US government documents, and no human life seems to have been lost or threatened, which is what official Washington was claiming in those first few days.

Stark terror seems one possible reason,. Times editor Bill Keller published a sqqualid "please don't arrest me" piece at length, inordinate length, in his newspaper, apparently to reduce the risk that the FBI was aould come to the Times office in Eighth Avenue, arrest him, and walk off with all the newspaper's computers. The Post has been more guarded, but to the same effect: Wikileaks brings out stories of considerable interest and potential value to its readers, and the paper doesn't carry them.

The silence in both newspapers suggest it's a great deal easier to muzzle the press than it used to be, before all that nasty legislation deemed necessary to war with terror, and shut up troublesome domestic newspapers. Seems to be doing its job.

I quote from the story: "A cable on Venezuelan arms exports to Russia provides clues on where Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi may be getting his surface-to-air missiles."

This comes complete with a link, which shows Russia's bee exporting arms to Venezuela. Wrong way, Jose. How did anybody come up with the romantic idea that Venezuela has weapons Russia would want to buy?

Wow.. although its have to access Wikileaks portal, I like this guys. They uncover anything that some people cannot uncover. They also like to uncover things that some people like to cover too... They don't care whether the story are from internal or external, they will find the news for you.. I agree that most of Wikileaks news is for the good cause but sometimes, I see that their news is only brings bad effect... But, that is hwy Wikileaks is unique... Because they only like to leak anything whether it is for good cause or not...

Please update:

In section Japan
...e raised concerns ab...

It is interesting that the Thai people have to concern themselves with the new government and also the new prince once the ailing King dies. The young prince seem to have a reputation that will not help him to be a very good king. It is a shame that the country new strong leadership but it is quite apparent that there is not a guru masterclass to give them advice about how to get help running the country.

The country needs serious leadership and strong focus on where the country is going and how to get it there. With all this turmoil, no new governement will solve the issues that they are facing. Even though the sister of the prince is favored, they will not give her the position because she is a woman, yet it seems that she might be the best man for the job.
Maybe they really should reconsider their position.

Fact check: Andrew Marshall was based in Singapore for Reuters, not Thailand.

But you're right in that he had to ..... not be there. For writing about the King in a negative way, he can never again visit Thailand without fear of arrest.

Wikileaks especially the recent ones do not show America in a particularly bad light more its so called allies. In fact a lot of the US ambassadors comments seemed rather well thought out and expressed as well as errr correct. The earlier comments about Price Andrew were hilarious.

Julian Assange however came across very very badly in UK (and Sweden I suspect). In general it is rather bad manners when a guest in someone's country to accuse its courts of being corrupt or to insult them as being too middle brow. He did not go down too well on the conference and corporate events circuit either let alone on TV. Far too cold and aloof. In fact he was almost booed off stage at a book festival (which would be a first) after some incredibely self serving statements about his awful plight.

Lets see how he does on his return to Sweden.........

See below

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was hectored by festival-goers at the weekend after he ducked a tough question about Private Bradley Manning who is facing life in prison.

The US soldier is accused of passing on highly sensitive classified material to the internet activist in 2009, including 250,000 US diplomatic cables later published by WikiLeaks.

During an appearance at the Hay Festival of Literature in Powys on Saturday, Mr Assange was asked if his own brief spell in prison had made him better appreciate Pte Manning's plight.

When Mr Assange failed to give an adequate answer he was hectored, with one audience member shouting: "Answer the question."

He spoke vaguely of "other" people in a similar situation whose names were not even known.

He also intimated that activists' interest in the conditions in which Pte Manning was being held had led to the improvements he now enjoys.

Pte Manning was initially held at the maximum-security military prison of Quantico, Virginia, before being transferred to "more humane" surroundings.

Mr Assange said his own 10-day prison experience in a London jail was "very similar" to what Pte Manning had gone through.

"I was in the bottom of Wandsworth Prison in the isolation unit with a camera watching me at all times," he told the audience.

Our politicians can't agree on anything except the USA rocks. Obama and W agree wholeheartedly; we are God's gift and "Nothing gives me greater honor than serving as your Commander in Chief" - Obama.
The most interesting part of this story, passed over all too soon, is mention of the way the New York Times and the Washington Post have gone to water, and aren't publishing Wikileaks any more -- this stretches for lower back pain despite the fact that none of the leaks already published from this source have been proved mistaken or fabricated.