[griffordson]

I've been watching the NSA story closely for years and I disagree. Snowden provided documentation. Until now all the whistle-blowers who were telling the same stories were easily dismissed because they couldn't provide solid evidence. And the administration was able to confuse and mislead Congress by assuring them that they were not doing anything more than a Grand Jury could do during an investigation. The members of Congress who knew better were either complicit or they were silenced by the rules covering classified briefings (a weak excuse in my opinion.)

Granted, Snowden is an important part of the story, and he will be remembered very favorably by history. But for people who are predisposed to buying the administration's fear mongering, he has been easily dismissed and used as a distraction in the short term.

[nitid_name]

I think Snowden's utility (in terms of historical significance) is in being relatively hydrophobic to the mud that's been slung at him. The only thing that's stuck (from what little I've seen of broadcast/print news reflected off the people I know who consume it) is his failure in formalized education.

He's a good looking heteronormative guy with no criminal record nor obvious sexual improprieties. He had nothing to gain from making the disclosure and apparently quite a bit to lose.