WASHINGTON, 26 April — One only needs to look at the titles in yesterday’s newspapers to guess the direction of the stories regarding yesterday’s visit between Crown Prince Abdullah and President Bush on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

“The Odd Couple” on yesterday’s front page of the Washington Times underscores the differences, and similarities, between the crown prince and the president, and in essence, between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

This — from the same newspaper that wrote a scathing anti-Saudi lead editorial on Wednesday entitled: “More Saudi Lies.”

“Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israel Policy,” warns yesterday’s New York Times. The Washington Post is strangely silent over their meeting in Crawford.

“Bush, Saudi Prince Meet Today for Blunt Talk on Mideast” predicts today’s Los Angeles Times.

While newspapers are trying to analyze relations between the two countries, some congressmen are working to stir things up.

“House Members Seek Apology from Saudi Ambassador” announces a press release issued Wednesday by Congressman J.D. Hayworth, R-Arizona.

It seems Hayworth, and 50 other House Republicans and Democrats are “outraged” by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar ibn Sultan’s recent statement that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian movement against Israel is similar to George Washington and the American colonists’ struggle for independence.

Not only do they declare themselves outraged, but also say Bandar’s statements are “untrue and intemperate.”

“Even the slightest suggestion of moral equivalence between Arafat and George Washington is insulting, especially coming from someone who professes to be America’s friend,” the letter said. “The American people are owed an apology form you for these outrageous, untrue, and intemperate comments, and we trust such an apology will be made.”

“Perception is everything. Where you stand on any issue, depends entirely on where you sit. So that the painful true-ism that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter explains why differing points of view can become dangerous,” said Ambassador Edward Peck, former chief of mission in Iraq and former White House Deputy Director of the Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism.

“Those members of Congress who signed that intemperate over-reaction are unable to perceive anything other than their own points of view. While in this context, that doesn’t make them wrong, it clearly indicates that they are seriously close-minded,” said Peck.

Back briefly to the Washington Times story. Despite its title, it is not, flagrantly anti-Saudi, or anti-Abdullah. After noting the differences between Abdullah and Bush, the writer ends with an appreciation of the crown prince:

“His plain-spokenness is legendary,” notes the story. “After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America — and despite his opposition to Israel — the prince said the Arab world required ‘some self-accounting that precedes the accounting of others,’ adding that it was ‘the duty of all Muslims’ to condemn the terrorist acts ‘without the slightest hesitation or ambiguity.’

“Though Prince Abdullah’s speech went unnoticed then in the Western media, Arab leaders are still talking about it.”