[304065]

Len, let me distinguish.

On the one hand, you have people who served at personal risk to themselves, and then tend to exaggerate their behavior once the shooting stops. This is the John Kerry situation, which was further compounded by his repudiation of the war effort, throwing away of medals, etc., all of which tended to fuel the opposition's characterization of him as a waffler. This is somewhat reprehensible, insofar as it diminishes the contributions of those who made TRUE sacrifices in service of the country.

But that's not what I believe to be the fact pattern here. You have Limbaugh, in a fervent effort to discredit Hackett, attacking NOT the difference between what Hackett says and what others who served with him say actually occurred (as in the Kerry case). Instead, Limbaugh is attacking the fact of his service, somehow implying that his contribution was any less valid because he was a civil affairs officer.

What next? Shall we assume that Senator McCain is superior to virtually all other candidates by virtue of his combat experience alone? Senator Inouye?

Simply put: Limbaugh, and anybody else, should be sufficiently creative to come up with ways to attack the candidate without having to question his military contribution. How do you think that makes the majority of persons serving in the military who are NOT in combat roles feel? Maybe Limbaugh should go over to Iraq in order to experience the daily terror of suicide attacks, lousy infrastructure, harsh climate and the collective scorn of Europe and a good chunk of America before he opens his yap?

Comments like that tend to DIMINISH his credibility, which is a disservice to the ideals he claims to serve.