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.