Besides, they already said they wouldn't do it.
I personally think this is the NYT's effort to derail talks. Or it is disinformation from the Saudi's to cover the real reason for the meeting. I don't think they had to go all the way to Crawford to tell us that we might have a rupture in relations. I don't think Rumsfeld's presence or Cheney's would have been necessary, either.
All is not what it seems. Rather than getting angry at the Saudis prematurely, one could ask what the Times is up to with this story, and who planted it. That is more interesting and mught be the key to the puzzle.
It's exactly what it seems. Some high ranking Saudi, maybe their ambassador to the U.S., told the Times most of this stuff in order to try to intimidate the President. You can complain about the New York Times, but compared to, say, the London Guardian or London Independent, their reporting is professional. The Saudi's are trying to intimidate us, not the New York Times.
Before too long, the Saudi government is likely to be overthrown no matter what happens on this diplomatic front.
Meanwhile, Dasshole and his fellow rats and rinos continue work to undermine GWB.
Can you imagine what it would be like if Gore was POTUS, assuming he was not still holed up at Offut AFB?
I think you're on to something. Rumsfeld and Cheney are going to present the steel fist, Bush will then give the velvet glove.
What's it gonna be Abdullah?