At
the16types.info, there is a wide ranging discussion over Assange's personality. The consensus over there is that he's an intuitive ethical introvert (IEI), the kind of person who is really effective at getting insight into a nation or group's psyche. These abilities are particularly evident in his interview with TIME.
IEI people specialize in illuminating character, often on a mass scale. They do something to provoke a reaction, which puts character on display. This enables people to see the true nature of the people around them. Consider how Mike Huckabee responded to the release of the cables, calling for Assange's assassination. And Sarah Palin, too. So now we have explicit evidence that these people are would-be murderers. Hence, their political chances are just about doomed. Conversely, look at Eric Holder: he's not who you thought he was, is he? The decision not to prosecute Cheney was just the beginning.
Assange has given us reason to be a lot more cynical about our politicians and even our government, and that's a good thing. IEI has a conflictor relation with logical sensory extrovert (LSE). The logical/sensing types form the core of government: LSE staffs the government; SLI (sensory logical introvert) establishes its structure; LSI (logical sensory introvert) establishes rule of law; and SLE (sensory logical extrovert) is the commander. When any of these four aspects of government are threatened, persons of these four types will insist on their importance and attempt to reinforce them. Logical sensory extrovert is the position also of the diplomat, who looks the other way when unethical deeds occur in the interest of what they see as vital cooperation. It is this ethical ambivalence which an IEI like Assange despises: he wants us to clean up our act, and he figures that by shaking down the government (by forcing our reactions and our outrage) that he can make us a less practical, but maybe more ethical nation. It doesn't help Assange that Obama is SLI, the sister type to LSE which is only a little bit less likely to tolerate unethical dealings on their watch. (and if you want an example of an LSE in the White House, just dial that clock back a couple years...)
I'm not bashing administrator-type people -- I'm just agreeing with Assange that we think, in terms of our diplomacy, a little too much like one big LSE. If we were more ethical in our goings-ons, we might have to rely on our soldiers a little less to clean up the messes we make when we work with despicable people.