You've never had to alter the emission system, at least not in Europe. If your car drove, it was fine. Who's going to test your car for emissions? A MODEL gets tested by whatever organization does that before it gets released, but individual cars never get tested.

They do here. In many major metro areas you have to get emissions testing yearly, and if you don't pass you can't get a new sticker for your car. Which, of course, is only a real issue if a cop notices and pulls you over (happened to me once... but I wasn't ticketed because he pulled up the plate on his computer and saw that it was valid. I had just forgotten to put the sticker on.)

Of course it's something of a joke because you don't actually have to get the car's emissions fixed. You just have to show that you spent $X trying with some improvement -- and there's a lot of mechanics who will "help" you get that done for far less than $X. (The tests are all computer controlled and state regulated, but they're hardly infallible)

Somehow I doubt that any car that got off the boat was emissions tested though.

One of the changes that lead to the end of individuals importing European cars was exactly this. Customs wouldn't release the vehicle if it didn't meet US emissions. And heaven help you if you live in California, with its much more stringent emissions standards.

And yet the European version will give better mileage.
You explain it to me

I'm still pointing at that rather large cost difference. Based on my research that's not due to taxes -- they're still on top of that number (at least some of them are).

One thing that I suppose may have something to do with it is the consistency / makeup of the gas used here as opposed to that in Europe, but that's pure guessing on my part.

Nope. You can run cars here on gas there and vica versa. The various additives in gasoline do not make a significant difference in mileage, merely in emissions.

Which only matters if you can easily import the car from that other country and run it in yours

This has actually been pretty simple as far back as I can remember, especially in Europe.
US <-> Europe is not that much harder, except that it's 4000 miles away and the fee on shipping becomes excessive.
You've never had to alter the emission system, at least not in Europe. If your car drove, it was fine. Who's going to test your car for emissions? A MODEL gets tested by whatever organization does that before it gets released, but individual cars never get tested.
When the Berlin wall fell, western europe was swamped with eastern european cars, do you seriously think that any of them were "tested" and "forced to change their emissions system"?
Again, this was in Europe, not sure if the US had a tougher system. Somehow I doubt that any car that got off the boat was emissions tested though.

You don't think that Ford would get seriously undercut by one (or several) of its competitors? Particularly the Japanese or Korean car companies

If they build the cheapest engine? I'm not sure how they would get undercut?

That's nice. It doesn't matter. They may not care, but Ford certainly does. The Focus is a pretty good seller. If it had higher mpg ratings then they could use that to offset the lower mpg ratings from other cars under the CAFE standards. Most US automakers are paying fines for not meeting the standards, so they have incentive for higher mpg cars even if the consumer allegedly doesn't care.

The consumer DOESN'T care, otherwise why is everyone driving a fucking truck / SUV when they don't need one? If you have four kids, yeah you need a minivan. I see thousands of people on the road every day with 1 kid in their "seats 9" SUV.
They sure aren't worried about mileage or anything.
Obviously they have reasons for buying an SUV (mostly because it's considered "cool" or something), but if they were truly worried about mileage, they wouldn't if they didn't need one.

As for WHY Ford doesn't introduce better engines here, beats me. The entire US auto market doesn't make sense to me anyways. The only thing I can think of is either cost or because they're worried that a car with a 100hp engine and higher rpm for torque won't sell as well to the average redneck.
Then again, in case of the Focus, that is not an issue since them seem to be the same.
And yet the European version will give better mileage.
You explain it to me.


Except that this engine is identical. Go look it up. The power, torque, and acceleration values for the 2.0L Duratec engine being used in both the US and EU are all similar enough to be considered the same.

So how to explain the difference in mileage? I have no idea...

May as well ask the guy at CompUSA why Intel can't design chips better. Neither one is going to have a clue.

True, I just got annoyed at him bragging about it like the car would run twice around the globe on a pint of gas.
Other than that he was a fine salesman, and I'm enjoying my 3 tremendously, and compared to most of the other cars in its range / class here in the States, it gives good mileage. (I get about 31 on average).
I just fondly look back on the cars I used to drive.

One thing that I suppose may have something to do with it is the consistency / makeup of the gas used here as opposed to that in Europe, but that's pure guessing on my part.

Creston

No dealer anywhere likes to price himself 8 grand higher than the dealer in the other country

Which only matters if you can easily import the car from that other country and run it in yours. That's certainly not the case for Europe<->US. Once you ship the car across the pond you then have to alter the emissions system and get it tested. By the time that's done you've well overspent any price difference. Plus you have to pay rather hefty taxes either way. Once upon a time it made sense to buy some high-end European cars in Europe and have them imported instead of buying them in the US (I'm talking about very high end Mercedes, BMWs, Porsche, Ferrari, etc), but that ended in the early 90s.

ecause it's presumably cheaper to make a less efficient engine. Making very efficient engines is probably pretty expensive. Saves money.

So, in theory, all that saved money is profit, right? You don't think that Ford would get seriously undercut by one (or several) of its competitors? Particularly the Japanese or Korean car companies?

The American citizen has shown to not give a shit anyways

That's nice. It doesn't matter. They may not care, but Ford certainly does. The Focus is a pretty good seller. If it had higher mpg ratings then they could use that to offset the lower mpg ratings from other cars under the CAFE standards. Most US automakers are paying fines for not meeting the standards, so they have incentive for higher mpg cars even if the consumer allegedly doesn't care.

Here you often have to settle for something that approximates what you want, but is not quite there.

Off-topic, but no you don't. You just have to wait a couple weeks if you want a factory ordered car. Then you'll get exactly what you want and you can generally negotiate a lower price from the dealer because of factory holdbacks and other incentives that they'll realize immediately rather than having to pay the factory and then wait for the car to sell.

There does seem to be more horsepower and low end torque in most american engines

Except that this engine is identical. Go look it up. The power, torque, and acceleration values for the 2.0L Duratec engine being used in both the US and EU are all similar enough to be considered the same.

I agree that, in general, your statement is true. But it's not in this case, so there must be an alternate explanation. And it appears to be price.

I asked the Mazda dealer why he treated the 28-35mpg mine gives as a Blessed Miracle, when it's really just shitty mileage, and he looked at me as if he didn't have the slightest clue what I was asking

May as well ask the guy at CompUSA why Intel can't design chips better. Neither one is going to have a clue.

Of course, now I'm wishing I'd listened more to my various college Mechanical Engineering roommates who were all into car and engine design.

That price was from the Ford UK website. I've tried to find dealer pricing to no avail. The US price was from edmunds.com as the sticker price.

I explained that wrong.

The dealer WANTS to charge a price same as here in the US, and actually does. No dealer anywhere likes to price himself 8 grand higher than the dealer in the other country. But then the government puts a totally insane tax ON TOP of that price that the dealer wants to charge, effectively raising his price by 8 grand (since he has to take the tax from you and then repay it to the government).

And in the case of Holland, not sure if this is true in the UK too, the dealer sets a net price, then adds 18.5% sales tax to it, and it's on THAT price that the government then adds the 40 odd percent "environment / you are evil for using a car!!!!11one!1!" tax. So, funny enough, they are TAXING their taxes. This has been a hotbed of contention in Holland for awhile now.
Ofcourse, Holland is the country that simply said "We have a deficit in 'Social Program 011348', so we're adding 25 cents in taxes to a liter of gas. This will only last until the deficit is filled."
Then when the deficit IS actually filled, they keep the tax on the fuel, since it's actually pretty easy money. Even Levy taxes in the middle ages weren't this brutal.
Note to everyone who thinks socialism is a great system : SHUT THE FUCKING FUCK UP.

But come on, let's think about this -- do you really think that Ford would sell a lower mpg car in the US just "because"?

Yes. Why?

A) Because it's presumably cheaper to make a less efficient engine. Making very efficient engines is probably pretty expensive. Saves money.

B) The American citizen has shown to not give a shit anyways. Only now that gas prices are soaring to monstrous heights are they beginning to think "Fuck, my SUV gives 17mpg, and I'm spending 50 dollars at the pump every week. Maybe I need to get something with a bit more efficiency."
Your comment with regards to the Hybrids being out of stock constantly is well taken, but it's not like they ever have 50000 in stock or anything. I think I saw ONE hybrid at a combined four car dealers here when my wife and I were shopping for a new car.

Btw, this is great in the US. Go to a dealer, buy a car, get your car, drive off in your new car.
In Holland, you go to a dealer, ORDER a fucking car, then wait 2-6 months (up to 11 months now for the VW Golf) for your damn car to show up.
Slight advantage to Holland, you do get your car exactly the way you want, with everything YOU want on it, and nothing that you don't want. Here you often have to settle for something that approximates what you want, but is not quite there.

C) There does seem to be more horsepower and low end torque in most american engines. According to my dad (who can probably build an engine from scratch), this requires a different approach in engineering than building a high rpm with torque in high rpms engine. Presumably, this also effects gas consumption.

If they could raise the mpg without raising the price they'd do so in a second

I'm not saying they won't, but the simple FACT of the matter is that American cars give fucking SHITTY mileage, which was my original point to begin with


So why wouldn't the US use the more fuel efficient engine if it wasn't for cost?

I have no idea. Neither does anyone I've asked this question since I moved here. I asked the Mazda dealer why he treated the 28-35mpg mine gives as a Blessed Miracle, when it's really just shitty mileage, and he looked at me as if he didn't have the slightest clue what I was asking.

I will say, American cars are getting BETTER. I bought my wife another Focus in 2004, and it gives noticeably better mileage, to the tune of about 3 or 4 mpg better (and she still drives the same stretch of highway to work).
I've already told her that her next car WILL be a Hybrid. I just find it peculiar that I almost HAVE to get a hybrid in the US to get mileage that most Europeans find pretty normal.

As for why that is... I have no clue.

Creston

This comment was edited on Jul 8, 10:06.

That's ON TOP of the MSRP which already has VAT included.

That price was from the Ford UK website. I've tried to find dealer pricing to no avail. The US price was from edmunds.com as the sticker price.

But come on, let's think about this -- do you really think that Ford would sell a lower mpg car in the US just "because"? Ford has to meet CAFE standards just like everyone else in the US market, and they use the Focus as a way to improve their fleet mpg to compensate for the gas hungry cars they sell. If they could raise the mpg without raising the price they'd do so in a second.

I know jack-all about engines, but the specs appear to be pretty much identical for the 2.0L engines being used in the US and UK -- nearly identical power and torque at the same revolutions (the slight differences could be attributable to emissions requirements). So why wouldn't the US use the more fuel efficient engine if it wasn't for cost?

The base model in the UK (again, smaller engine) is 11,195 British pounds, or $19,499 US.

That's nearly a 45% price premium. There are certainly other differences between the models -- they are by no means identical -- but nothing that should contribute to that kind of price difference.


Which I can EASILY explain btw. The UK puts a 45% tax on new cars. Holland puts a 39% tax on new cars. That's ON TOP of the MSRP which already has VAT included.
People in Holland will buy their car from every other country rather than Holland, to escape the new car tax. People from the UK will buy in HOLLAND rather than in the UK.

So that's very easily explained. I'm out of time now, will read and respond to the rest tomorrow

Creston

This comment was edited on Jul 7, 17:25.

The main reason European cars are more fuel efficient is because they are so much smaller and lighter.

Doesn't explain the Ford Focus I post about (long after your post). The UK model is actually slightly larger than the US model -- a couple inches in length and height, a slight bit in width, and slightly heavier. Yet it gets vastly better mileage.

I'm going to stick with cost until proven wrong!

As for the whistleblower thing -- I wasn't trying to make it apply to her. I'm saying it doesn't apply to Novak. At all. He wasn't a whistleblower under any interpretation of the statutes.

I can't be bothered to do the research on this, but I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with emissions

Well, it kinda does. If you look at the engine technology now compared to 50 years ago we've come a long, long ways. Much smaller engines, much more efficient, etc. You can take the efficiencies in (roughly) three different directions (at the same cost; obviously you can go for lower cost as an alternative):
- More power
- Less emissions
- Better fuel economy

In general the US has gone for emissions/power, while Europe has gone for emissions/fuel. But prior to 1986 it was purely fuel economy. European emissions standards were drastically worse than the US's and had been for two decades.

And I agree that the US has been going for insane horsepower and torques. Based on some reading, however, Europe has started upping the hp as well which is causing some issues with meeting the newer emissions standards. And while it's required by law that various emissions information be printed on the car tag, apparantly it's in micro-type at the bottom and generally ignored (again, this is based on reading; not personal experience).

Japan has had about the best emissions standards ever, I believe

Actually, as of a few years ago they had just about the worse of any industrialized country. I'm unsure if they've fixed that.

The US customer just accepts shitty mileage from its cars.

There's far more to it than that. If you think that consumers wouldn't buy a similarly priced, similarly equipped vehicle that got vastly more mileage than you're wrong. Heck, people are clearly willing to give up some of that for far better mileage -- otherwise Toyota and Honda wouldn't be perpetually out of stock on their hybrids.

I think I may've figured out one of the huge differences though. The Ford Focus lines aren't directly comparable between the US and Europe (at least not anymore; maybe they were) but based on MSRP I can certainly see one difference.

The base model Ford Focus in the US gets 26/35 mpg. The base model Focus in the UK gets 32.5/52.3 mpg (much smaller engine; same size engine gets 28.8/52.3 mpg).

The base model in the US costs (MSRP) $13465.

The base model in the UK (again, smaller engine) is 11,195 British pounds, or $19,499 US.

That's nearly a 45% price premium. There are certainly other differences between the models -- they are by no means identical -- but nothing that should contribute to that kind of price difference.

Now this is hardly a definitive study. I didn't look at any other cars. Looking at VW would probably be a good comparison since the US models are built in Germany, so labor costs shouldn't be an issue. They may be much closer in design/features as well. But I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader

The main reason European cars are more fuel efficient is because they are so much smaller and lighter. Yes, all this other stuff does come into play. But when the average US domestic vehicle weight is nearly double the average European domestic vehicle weight…well.

I would accept that, except for the fact that the same trend is seen between pretty much similar cars. The only difference between my focus and my wife's focus was that hers had a much larger rear bumper (due to some law here that requires that) compared to mine.
Otherwise it was a wash. Same length, same wheelbase, same weight (20lb difference I believe).

Creston

The US customer just accepts shitty mileage from its cars. I seriously HOPE it will change, but I doubt it...

The main reason European cars are more fuel efficient is because they are so much smaller and lighter. Yes, all this other stuff does come into play. But when the average US domestic vehicle weight is nearly double the average European domestic vehicle weight…well.

US trend is just for bigger and more powerful cars; because we are bigger fat asses so we need more room for our fat asses and more power to accelerate it!

And while the SUV’s are getting more popular, on the other end so are smaller and more fuel efficient cars too…it’s kinda of a wash right now.

I say F cars and somebody invent the Jetson mobile already damn it.


"When I say your dumb name please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me."-Ignignokt

Except that, again, it doesn't apply.

I was not trying to make it apply to her. I was just stating that he has not been under investigation, or trying to find his sources because of the whistleblower act.


But it is all one big piece of shit...since I already stated I had some major facts wrong. And of course I will blame reporters on why I had my facts wrong!




"When I say your dumb name please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me."-Ignignokt

Yes, that is who I was talking about who was saved by it

Except that, again, it doesn't apply. And I cannot find any reference to Novak being under such protection. The various sites I've read simply say that it's widely believed that he cooperated w/ the special prosecutor and that he's publicly stated that once this is all over with that he'll "tell the whole story".

I still think it was wrong of him to out Plame, but unless he wasn't questioned by the SP then I don't a conspiracy.

And to grow that much corn would require massive amounts of fertilizer, which would require petroleum based/created products anyway.

Agreed. This is the essential stumbling block to both fuel ethanol and biodiesel -- in order to grow enough crops for either requires modern farming techniques. Modern farming techniques are heavily reliant upon petroleum derived fertilizers.

Biodiesel does have several advantages over fuel ethanol though. It does fix more CO2 than its production and usage creates and it's a multiple-use fuel. You can make vegetable oil from various plants, then refine the used oil into biodiesel. There's a tradeoff here since it's better to use "lightly" used oil, so you don't get as many usage cycles from it, but I think it still works out better in the end.

If we could breed a high-oil plant for bio-diesel use then it could theoretically become energy positive. But we're a good bit away from doing that successfully.

Of course, the very lax diesel emissions standards may be one reason why diesel cars are so popular there

No that has nothing to do with it. Diesel is CHEAPER in Europe than normal gasoline, to the tune of several DIMES cheaper PER LITRE.

So if you drive a lot of miles (there are companies even specialised in calculating for you how many miles / km you'd have to drive to make money on switching to Diesel cars, figuring in that the government hates it that you use a Diesel car, and so charges an extra 3000 bucks tax on the PURCHASE of your car), people switch to Diesel because it saves them money.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about the emissions.


Sure, you could get 50, but with vastly higher emissions

I can't be bothered to do the research on this, but I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with emissions. It seems to have more to do with the somehow innate desire of Americans to drive a 5 Liter engine when a 2 Liter engine would do, or to have a 700HP engine when 100HP would be fine. American engines also have a lot more torque on low rpm, (this apparently guzzles fuel) and never really go high RPM. Most european / japanese cars will go into much higher rpms before they really get the torque going.

Btw, the Volkswagen Golf has been getting 45-50mpg since waaaaaaaayyyyyy back, late 80s even I believe. Similary for most Opel models, they have been 40+ mpg since forever. And still are.

Let me make it even simpler. My Ford Focus 2000, bought in Holland (made in the UK), gave me around 1/16km, ie, (3.75x16)/1.6 = 37.5 mpg
That was highway traffic, obviously it was a bit lower in normal use, say around 33mpg.
My wife, then fiancee, bought a Ford Focus too, in 2001 (year newer model), here in the United States.
It did 25-28. My engine was far more powerful than the one she had (I had a 1.8, not sure what she had, 1.6 or 1.8 I think, but mine just flat out destroyed hers in pure performance, no figures for this, just know this from driving both cars regularly). Yet mine got FAR BETTER gas mileage.
And the funny thing is, the Focus actually got a - mark against it for its "uneconomical / expensive" engine in Holland, because it was worse than most of the other competitors in its price range.
I don't think the emission standards were that much different anymore between Europe and the US in the year 2000.

And as a final showcase, Toyota in Japan has a so called Lean-Burn engine, which gives truly wack mileage. 1/22 = (3.75*22)/1.6 = 51.625 mpg on AVERAGE use. Japan has had about the best emissions standards ever, I believe.

The US customer just accepts shitty mileage from its cars. I seriously HOPE it will change, but I doubt it...


Creston

This comment was edited on Jul 7, 15:10.

Uh, then I suggest you change news sources. The reporter who has been jailed never wrote a story. She conducted interviews, but never wrote an article. Feel free to go research this.

Bah…further research shows that to be correct.

I however can link to articles by CNN, Drudge, MSN and Fox News that said she did.

Again…fucking reporters confusing me again!

Never mind then, as I said it would completely changes everything if what he said was true.

Bloody hell!

Whistleblower protection might have applied if Novak,

Yes, that is who I was talking about who was saved by it.

Plants use co2, and lots of it.

But as I was talking about in your original response, you where talking about using it on a large scale and it’s the “oil companies” keeping us.

The rate and efficiency at which plants produce Ethanol is too slow, there is just not enough room to grow that much corn for the amount we need at that slow and inefficient rate. So it would be an industrial process. Thus, producing just as much CO2. And to grow that much corn would require massive amounts of fertilizer, which would require petroleum based/created products anyway.

Again, not saying anything about ethanol other than to produce it the level we need to replace fossil fuels would end the end produce more pollution.

We use gasoline because it is so efficient, easy and cheap for what it is.


"When I say your dumb name please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me."-Ignignokt

1 kg of hydrogen contains the same amount of energy as 2.1 kg of natural gas or 2.8 kg of gasoline. The energy to volume ratio amounts to about 1/4 of that for petroleum and 1/3 of that for natural gas. Water consists of 11.2% hydrogen by weight.

I stand corrected. Turns out I was thinking of metal-hydrate vs. liquid gasoline, where gasoline beats hydrogen about twenty to one in the kwh per kilogram game. When we're talking pure hydrogen versus gasoline... Well, I was wrong.

___________________________________________
GW: Vergil Gregorius, lvl 9 12 13 Warrior/Necromancer

Not sure 100% if it's a LAW or not, but the whistleblower protection is definitely real.

Yes, but it doesn't apply in this case (at least not what you were referring to). There was no law being broken by Plame, so there's no reason to have outed her. There may have been a law broken by whoever leaked her identity, but that person wasn't outed.

Whistleblower protection might have applied if Novak, et. al. had revealed their source as opposed to revealing Plame. But since they're not employees of the organization involved even then it's questionable that it would have applied.

Basically, it's apples and oranges.

If we have a fuel that's completely clean and cheap to produce, who cares how efficient it is?

Except that hydrogen will never be that fuel. It's not completely clean -- the production of the hydrogen fuel itself will be dirty unless someone finds some magic pure hydrogen source (they exist... a few million or billion miles away...). And it's certainly not cheap.

33mpg doesn't please me too much (old European here, I'm used to getting 50...)

Sure, you could get 50, but with vastly higher emissions. It wasn't until the early 90s that EU standards surpassed US emissions standards (prior to 1986 they were vastly higher). The current Euro standards are quite a bit better for non-diesel vehicles, and getting even better this year.

Of course, the very lax diesel emissions standards may be one reason why diesel cars are so popular there. Meanwhile US diesel standards are becoming more strict.

Hydrogen is a worse energy carrier than gasoline. It's considerably less energy dense, and a lot harder to deal with.

Depends on what you mean by density. The kWh/l of hydrogen in any form (excepting perhaps solid, but good bloody luck there) is considerably lower than that of gasoline. But the MJ/kg is vastly higher.

In other words, it's not very efficient by volume, but it is extremely efficient by weight.

It is, however, incredibly difficult to deal with -- gaseous hydrogen leaks out of just about anything, liquid has to be kept very cold and/or under high pressure. And it's all very, very explosive.

What law? I've never heard of any such thing, nor have I come across any such reference to it while reading up on this case. And I've been hitting news sites of all sides of the political spectrum.

Not sure 100% if it's a LAW or not, but the whistleblower protection is definitely real.

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/labor_laws/a/whistle_blower.htm

http://www.whistleblowers.org/

Creston

so maybe we should just suck it up and deal with a inferior fuel.

If we have a fuel that's completely clean and cheap to produce, who cares how efficient it is? Fuel right now is expensive, so my 33mpg doesn't please me too much (old European here, I'm used to getting 50...), it also pollutes like fuck.

If our fuel doesn't pollute, and it costs 3 cents a gallon at the pump, my car could go 1 mpg for all I care.
I think the efficiency part is not really all that important.

Creston

This comment was edited on Jul 7, 10:34.

I'll just make two points:

Plants use co2, and lots of it. Now, admittedly since co2 is just carbon and oxygen, and plants absorb those two from other sources too, it's conciveable that you'd end up with more atmospheric co2 from producing and burning the ethanol, but I doubt it.

Hydrogen is a worse energy carrier than gasoline. It's considerably less energy dense, and a lot harder to deal with. Someone made the point, however, that it's a lot easier to reduce emmisions from a coal powered hydrogen plant than from millions of cars, so maybe we should just suck it up and deal with a inferior fuel.

___________________________________________
GW: Vergil Gregorius, lvl 9 12 13 Warrior/Necromancer

Everything I have read said she did, but if she did not…yes that would change it.

Uh, then I suggest you change news sources. The reporter who has been jailed never wrote a story. She conducted interviews, but never wrote an article. Feel free to go research this.

the guy who did is being protected by a “whistle blower” law the reporters have had on the books for quite some time.

What law? I've never heard of any such thing, nor have I come across any such reference to it while reading up on this case. And I've been hitting news sites of all sides of the political spectrum.

They WHERE making serious accusations about illegal activities going on based on this information that where clearly not.

The accusation you seem to be referring to is the claim that she was outed as payback against her husband -- a US ambassador who publicly questioned the alleged sale of uranium from Africa to Iraq. Who, as it turns out, was right. There was no such sale, and the "intelligence" it was based on was incredibly flimsy.

The accusation isn't "easily deniable" and it rings rather true. Why out her as opposed to any one of numerous other agents? She wasn't exactly high value as I understand it. And why was she the only one outed?

And they, the liberals, demanded a special investigation about this whole thing.

Because, as I recall, the administration was doing jack shit about investigating a national security breach. Outing a covert CIA agent, even if one not extremely valuable, is a major issue. Not only does it endanger their lives (and their families'), but it also risks the highly protected "methods and sources". This is freaking basic stuff here, and the administration wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to find out who leaked.

Again, I think the reporters should be forced to reveal their sources here -- it's a national security issue, and the courts have been pretty damn clear when that's involved.

They where using this information to make bold out right lies and allegations.

Again, point me at an article showing lies. By any one of the reporters involved in this and related to the investigation. I haven't been able to find one.

Oh, and for reference... I know the widely spread belief is that the source for Plame's covert identity was Karl Rove. I don't buy that. This is a major felony, and while I intensely dislike Rove (c.f. -- 2000 push-polling in South Carolina against McCain) he is not a stupid man and wouldn't make this kind of mistake -- even if he thought the reporters would be shielded by the 1st ammendment.

As for the other allegations, I don't know and we won't know why her name was leaked for many years. But I've yet to hear another rational explanation for why her, and only her, name was leaked.