Strongly disagree on (1) being a fact: Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government. You argue that this made the "tree" weaker; I would counter that this actually gave an opportunity to fix and heal things (which was mostly squandered).

All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable).

I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?