Well, that doesn’t fit the facts. If she was really a publicity hound, then “hero” fits that much better than what she’s saying. If anything she’s *lessening* her publicity, much more than if she maintained the “hero status”. So, that doesn’t fit what I see happening here, with her “setting the record straight”.
As far as her credibility, for one thing she gets a higher mark for actually *discounting* the exagerrated story. That ends up *enhancing* her credibility. Then secondly, let’s say that I’m captured and then rescued — well, then that means that the one *most qualified* to say what happened to me — is — *me*. So, I have the most authoritative account of what happened to *me*.
I am not disputing whether what she said happened to her is true. What I am disputing is that the Pentagon lied about her experience. The Pentagon might have been wrong, but that's different from lying. Lying requires knowing A, but saying B. There is no way she can know that the Pentagon knew she wasn't the hero, but insisted she was anyway.
I would agree with you insofar as her testimony discounting her own heroism, but I disagree anything she might have to say about her repatriation. If she was immobilized in a hospital bed, imprisoned or not, she is the least qualified person to comment on the operational & tactical aspects of the rescue operation. Anything she might say there is second-hand, at best.
So you want the military brass to run around and say, “Jessica Lynch is no hero?” I don’t think that is likely to happen nor should it. Sometimes it’s better to just let the story die on its own. But Congress critters determined to make hay out of nothing cannot let it die.