The problem with defending Snowden.

[ProSense]

142. True,

You can argue about this with respect to his credibility, but if someone already finds his claims credible (for whatever reason, justified or not) than nothing you say about Snowden's motivations is going to convince them otherwise. Snowden may have screwed himself, but the question the media is focusing on, "What's going to happen to Snowden?" is secondary in many DUers minds to the questions "Are his claims accurate?", "Can the government legally do this?" and "SHOULD the government be able to legally do this?".

Maybe Snowden is a whistleblower, maybe he's a traitor, maybe he'll stay in some foreign country or maybe he'll come back to the US. Maybe he'll go to prison or maybe he'll do the talk-show circuit. I don't really give a shit about any of it. I'm more interested in what he's been alleging has and does occur under the guise of "keeping us safe".

...and for many, the inaccuracies are glaring, and in some instances appear to be intentional manipulations for maximum impact.