I try to say as much as I can as clear as I can, but it isn't always heard and understood
When your opinions are challenged and your reply is "Nah, I'm just right", that's 1) not helpful and 2) a good indicator of the opposite.
I understand the needs, real and perceived, for espionage. However, your entire argument is that 1) Snowden broke his word, and 2) the damage he did was worse than the government abuse he revealed. Nobody disagrees with you on 1); what we're saying is that breaking your word isn't automatically unethical and disqualifying everything you do and say, and that you have yet to provide any proof of 2)...recalling some spies is not going to be the end of the country or the world, and certainly shouldn't be seen as a bigger atrocity than the massive government overreach and civil rights violations. Do you disagree?
Do you disagree that it can be noble to break your word to do good or to stop evil? If you promise you'll keep a secret and I tell you I'm going to go murder some babies, are you a coward/liar/non-man/sellout if you tell the authorities, or are you behaving as an ethical human being should?
I believe I have some clue on the "damage" he might have done, but I clearly don't know everything. Do you know more than you've shared? If so, please share it so we can try to understand why you consider it so damaging...if not, then the question is why do you think it's such a big deal? Do you really think that forcing the recall of some spies is as damaging to US-world relations as the fact that we were violating the rights of their citizens and ours for no particular reason other than we could?
If he had come out and said "hey guys, the NSA is spying on people!", it's unlikely he would have had much impact...these kind of allegations need documentation and proof. Even with it, people are quick to dismiss it for ideological reasons, as has been done in this thread...what makes you think he would have had any impact on the issue without it?