regarding Edward Snowden, the point is being missed I suspect...

[ljm2002]

137. Problem is...

...your problem statements / responses don't stand up to scrutiny.

Problem #1 - The President was already publicly talking about a need to have a national discussion about whether the Surveillance program infringed too much on privacy.

So? All of his sweeping rhetoric did not mention anything specific at all. And the discussion certainly wasn't getting any traction with the public. Also, there is NO WAY he would have brought the scope of the data gathering to our attention. You know that as well as I do. After all, the Utah facility was still being built, without any scaling back planned by this administration.

Problem #2 - We have no idea if the documents Snowden took were authentic or reflect actual programs in existence.

Utter nonsense. Please provide a link to any NSA official or government official who has denied the authenticity of the documents revealed so far. Whereas in the meantime, we've had NSA officials crying that he "stole the crown jewels", talking about fixing their (obviously inept) internal controls, and being pissed off that he revealed what he did.

Problem #3 - Unlike someone like Daniel Ellsberg, he fled rather than face the challenges of what he did.

Of course, you manage to neglect the fact that Daniel Ellsberg himself says Snowden did the right thing by fleeing -- that the obstacles Ellsberg faced back in the day, pale compared to what whistle blowers can expect today. And as to fleeing to two of our adversaries -- I can't speak to his first stop, but the Russia thing has been gone over again and again. You either believe he was forced to stay there or you don't. I'll not try and convince you here.

Problem #4 - His ridiculous hyperbolic statements lend more to the conclusion that this guy is a sophomoric fool who has no idea what was really going on and is a publicity hound with delusions of grandeur.

The problem is, we don't really know whether he is being hyperbolic. You seem to think his statement that a person's purchases could be seen at his desk, rolling across his screen in real time, is hyperbolic. I am not sure at all. Of course it is easy to twist what he said and try to claim that everyone's purchases are rolling across NSA screens all the time -- but I don't believe that is what he is claiming.

Problem #5 - Related to Problem #1, As EFF points out, much was already happening in various branches of government regarding the surveillance program. Note this link https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline (etc.)

Unfortunately for you, much that is revealed at the link you provide shows how arrogant the NSA continued, and continues to be. For example, this gem from Jan 9, 2006:

All But Two Judges on Secret Surveillance Court Finally Told of Spying

Leaked NSA Inspector General Report, Pg 37

The leaked NSA Inspector General report detailing the history of the domestic spying program reveals that it was not until after the the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretapping program did General Alexander, Director of NSA, feel compelled to brief the all members of the secret court that is supposed to oversee foreign surveillance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

There is so much more at the link, you should actually choose a couple of supporting arguments. Otherwise, people like me are likely to go over there and get even more mad about domestic spying.

Anyway, you contend that the President wanted, really wanted to have this conversation. If so, all I can say is, he was pretty ineffective on that front. There was NO national conversation on this until Snowden's revelations. Now it may be that the much-derided "public" just didn't care, until there was a dramatic event to bring it to the forefront. But so what? The fact is, now we are having that conversation -- and most of us are not accepting the warm, fuzzy handwaves we have accepted in the past from our public officials on this topic. Too. Damned. Bad.