Those are all hairsplitting differences. It's not as if he claimed to have personally ended Saddam's kids. Why make an issue of this when these are trivial distinctions- there's little real distinction between qualifying as command sergeant and retiring just before receiving it and holding the rank.

The far greater offense is the false claim that Walz retired to avoid serving in Iraq, when he put in his papers six months before the US invasion, at a time when it wasn't clear US troops WOULD go in, and when, after 24 years of exemplary service, he had every right to retire and nobody had any call to imply he was shirking his duties or being a coward.