not really
what is seen (at least in the couple hundred released so far, and in the dozens I've read myself) is not so much what is done diplomatically, but how. So, while we all know Western powers get together to control weaker nations, but in this cable:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175722
we see it in action. We not only see people playing the "great game" in central asia, but members of the British Royal Family call it such, and express their intent to "win".
The cable is discussed here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-rude-prince-andrew
but they seem to go for the easy headline, "one of the Princes is rude to foreigners". However, if you read through the cable, you get an understanding for how business is really done in Kyrgistan, at all levels, and how the economic and political arms of a nation essentially work as one to enforce policy.
I tend to think this is the type of information that the government wouldn't want to release as misinformation. The type of stuff, as John McCain might put it, "that you don't say out loud".
Considering the COICA, and that American congressmen are already calling wikileaks, no kidding, a terrorist organization, I don't think they would need to make it seem more "anti-american" to enact legislation against it (technically, wikileaks already violates american law).
From the perspective that this might be "fake" or "counter-intelligence", 1) thats why I like the filter of the Guardian or NYT, acutally, I'll let the NYT answer:
In fact, in this case — our third round of articles based on documents obtained by WikiLeaks — we did not receive the documents from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of the group, decided to withhold the material from us, apparently because he was offended by our reporting on his legal and organizational problems....
WikiLeaks is a source of raw material, which we have used to write articles about America’s foreign relations. No one from WikiLeaks had any input into our articles, or was allowed to see them before publication.
Like most sources, WikiLeaks has its own motives. Our motive, in fact our reason for being, is to provide information and analysis to help readers decide what they think about the world.
basically, there is some degree of confirmation there, from a source that has questioned wikileaks in the past and at least doesn't always sing their praises, and 2) if we believe there are over 250 000 documents with as specific information as what is contained in these cables, we would be talking about a counter-intelligence operation that would have taken years and hundreds, if not thousands, of people to accomplish. Again from the NYT:
The contents of the cables are consistent with much other reporting we have done on America’s foreign relations, and the format is familiar from embassy cables we have seen from other sources. But the most reliable authentication is this: In our extensive conversations with the United States government — in this case, and in the two previous releases of classified documents by WikiLeaks — no official has questioned the genuineness of the material, or suggested that they have been manipulated in any way.
I think occam's razor still errs on the leak being real.
(sort of) 3: also, while constantly referring to the cables as "alleged", Clinton does point out that they confirm much of what America has said about Iran (they do), meaning that she probably dosn't think they are "alleged", at least when America looks good.
EDIT: basically, I don't think the Americans would be capable of faking a leak of this nature without someone smelling a rat (other than Ahmadeenijad), and I think they already have the tools to fight cyberterrorism, or subsequently abuse people with anti-cyberterrorism, without needing to legislate against wikileaks, which is already a criminal organization in terms of American law.
EDIT2: that NYT link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29askthetimes.html?pagewanted=1