Maybe does some actual investigative journalism or put emphasis on the fact that the Bush administration claims were unproven? US media wouldn't uncritically report the statements of the Russian government as truth and a similar standard should be applied to the US government. It isn't like this is something they wouldn't have been able to do. Nancy Pelosi admitted she knew the truth back then.
> I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there.
> They had to show us now - to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they had. The Intelligence did not show that that - that was the case. So, I knew it was a - a misrepresentation to the public[1][2].
I find a big reason to use DDG is because it has "!bangs" that allow you to redirect your search to other site's native search engines by appending/prepending them to your query. I can use "!pac" to search for Arch Linux packages, "!aw" to search the Arch Wiki, "!gh" to search Github, etc. So the quality of DDG's search may be lacking but I generally know the site I want to search and can use their native searches. Any way, if you want to get away from Google but can't get by with DDG, consider Qwant.
Apparently if SMS verification fails, it can fall back to a phone call where a robot reads you the verification code. This means you could set up Signal with a landline, Google Voice, Skype, or Twilio.
> This was the early 1970s, he said, why were these engineers so confident in their calculations? As guessed by many in the audience, the reason for that was "computers". In fact, when they won the bid, they told the city of Hartford that they could save half a million dollars in construction costs "if you buy us this new, whiz-bang thing called a computer". It turned out that the computer worked fine, but it was given the wrong inputs. There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers.
Perhaps you would prefer the term "middle income." I think your conception of the term class and the one used in the article are different. By substituting the term "middle class" for "middle income"this issue is sidestepped.
> By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 percent of the world’s population, or some 3.8 billion people, live in households with enough discretionary expenditure to be considered “middle class” or “rich.”
> Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty.
> I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there.
> They had to show us now - to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they had. The Intelligence did not show that that - that was the case. So, I knew it was a - a misrepresentation to the public[1][2].
[1] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/12/10/1904681/-Impeach...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMwKg4GhYh0