Why do you believe Dvorak but not the guy who was vetted by a presidential administration?
Fair question.
1. OP was well written and seemed well supported. If he's wrong about the degrees, then he's wrong and so am I. We'll find out soon enough.
2. "Attack the messenger" is a last resort tactic used when you don't know how to "attack the content". It doesn't work with me.
3. I believe that the vetting is strictly for political purposes, not for achievement or better use of taxpayer dollars. At least Dvorak earned his own way instead of sucking at the federal teat that I help fund. That gets him a little extra cred from me.
Sounds a little like, "He said, she said..." I don't know. I only know what I read here at hn :-). If OP is wrong then shame on me for believing him. He'll never have the same credibility with me again.
I find it interesting that you believed before the accusations were verified. Even Dvorak phrases his "report" as a question, as does ths submitter.
I can understand why you might wonder if Vivek Kundra is qualified after reading Dvoraks' blog. I did too, and I still haven't made up my mind, but I certainly didn't (and don't) believe Dvorak's repport just on his say so. Someone else asked "why don't you believe the White House instead of Dvorak?"
I thought the whole thing was not about belief but rather about verification of claims.
Fair question.
1. OP was well written and seemed well supported. If he's wrong about the degrees, then he's wrong and so am I. We'll find out soon enough.
2. "Attack the messenger" is a last resort tactic used when you don't know how to "attack the content". It doesn't work with me.
3. I believe that the vetting is strictly for political purposes, not for achievement or better use of taxpayer dollars. At least Dvorak earned his own way instead of sucking at the federal teat that I help fund. That gets him a little extra cred from me.