Nothing wrong with that in this context, but it highlights how hard it is to do anything else. It's easier to talk about the reactions and dissemination and censorship and rhetoric. Those are actually more universal topics, and they're unfolding now.
The nitty-gritty of the cable revelations is subject to a interpretation and even more acrimonious rehearsed-roles debate, so (as here) it often just gets mentioned in passing, with a hand-wave and nod to its importance.
Of the cables' revelations, many that people are 'shocked, shocked' to hear are what was already assumed to be true or partially reported -- covert military strikes in other countries, attempts to downplay fatalities or wartime actions in error, frank assessments of shady regimes.
And it seems to me many people are just seeing what they wanted to see. If they already bought into a Chomskyite view of the US as the scheming amoral fount of all evil in the world, there's enough in the cables to feed that view. If they think the US is just another powerful but bumbling country pursuing its interests, fighting several wars, striking balances with sordid situations not entirely under its control, there's enough in the cables to feed that view, too.
What's the one or two things in the cables you found most surprising?