Well, it's one thing to confirm that some of the documents are real and that the principle of the thing is outrageous. It's something else entirely to confirm

Well, it's one thing to confirm that some of the documents are real and that the principle of the thing is outrageous. It's something else entirely to confirm that all of the documents are legitimate, or to identify which ones are, for example, drafts or notional. And it's something else again to clarify individual statements, give context to conversations, and to discuss which of the revealed facts are current and relevant. It's not as simple as saying, "these documents are unclassified". You have to look over the facts they reveal and decide which might still be worth the effort of keeping secret, and which it's okay to talk openly about. There's also the possibility that the documents may contain misleading information or even disinformation written specifically for Wikileaks. I'd be surprised if such a thing has never happened, and surprised further still if it never does. A policy of never confirming or commenting on leaked information means those who would like to make serious use of it must always wonder.