On Tuesday night, when Bush talked about increasing funding for alternative energy research by 22%, and the need to reduce our "addiction" to foreign oil, I was skeptical and thought "gee, that's not much of an increase", and "how's he going to do that again?"

Well, it turns out I was not skeptical enough. I forgot that Bush has a track record of trumpeting programs even as he is simultaneously trying to cut funding for them. So, here are a couple of gems that have emerged in the day and a half since the speech.

Gem #1: In an article from Knight Ridder, on Wednesday, February 1:

"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. "

The article goes on to explain that "the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, [Alan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council] said. But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection."

So why did the President say what he said? "Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.'" So he's just telling us what he thinks we want to hear, even if it isn't true.

Gem #2: Increase funding by 22% for alternative energy? Well, I guess he didn't specifically say that that money would go to our National Renewable Energy Laboratory, but it does seem like the logical choice, being a national lab that does research on alternative energy and all.

But not only is he not increasing their funding, he's actually cutting it and there will now be layoffs. This article in the NYT starts out by talking about the obstacles Bush has already encountered, but the real gem is buried at the very end.

"The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

"A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports. "

Nice, huh? The best part is that his promise of reducing foreign oil depends on us having other sources of energy. So, here's how it works: promise more alternative energy and less foreign oil. Promise more money for alternative energy research in order to get there. Then cut funding for alternative energy research so there isn't anything to replace the foreign oil. Hmm, aren't we back where we started?

And just to round things out, a couple of other gems from the NYT article:

First of all, Saudia Arabia is pissed: "...the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to ask Mr. Bush's office 'what he exactly meant by that.'" I'm curious how Bush will respond, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his response, in private, will be "don't worry, I didn't really mean it."

Also the article notes: "But when asked why Mr. Bush had not called on the public to sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that 'many Americans believe they're already sacrificing by paying the prices they're paying for gasoline and heating oil and natural gas.'" I'm sorry, isn't there a faily basic economic law about supply and demand? Reduce the demand, and the cost drops? Maybe I'm oversimplifying but I think this guy's logic is crap.