US papers stress Bush 'failures'

The bombing claimed at least 29 lives

American newspapers agree that Monday's suicide attacks in Riyadh are a serious setback for the US administration, but they differ on the main lessons to be drawn.

Some commentators see the bombings as a shattering blow to President Bush's war on terror - others urge him to get even tougher on militants and those who harbour them.

There are also conflicting advice on how to deal with the Saudi authorities in future, ranging from better co-operation to increased pressure.

Buried in the rubble of Riyadh are some of the Bush administration's basic assumptions

New York Times

The New York Times highlights what it views as the flaws of the White House's approach.

"Buried in the rubble of Riyadh are some of the Bush administration's basic assumptions: that al-Qaeda was finished, that invading Iraq would bring regional stability and that a show of American superpower against Saddam would cow terrorists," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes.

But the New York Times at least agrees with the administration on one point: US troops have outstayed their welcome in the kingdom.

"The Bush administration is already embarked on a plan to take American troops out of Saudi Arabia," the paper writes in a separate editorial.

"That is a smart idea that will eliminate one target of fundamentalist ire, put our soldiers where they can be more easily protected and give the Saudi royal family an opening to begin making political and economic concessions to its restless people."

Blind eye?

USA Today believes that the bombings underscore a number of shortcomings.

[Saudi rulers] have found it more urgent to protect their own cushy status quo than to look too closely at what is preached in the country's mosque

Wall Street Journal

First, it says, there was an intelligence failure on the part of the US administration: "As was the case before 9/11, it had picked up hints of a coming attack but could not pinpoint when or where - though this time it came heartbreakingly close."

But, according to USA Today, the "larger weakness" in the war on terror highlighted by the bombings "is the US failure to demand greater co-operation from Saudi Arabia, whose help is critical because of its terrorist links".

One of the most forceful indictments of the Saudi authorities is found in the Wall Street Journal.

"Thus far, the kingdom's ruling princes have found it more urgent to protect their own cushy status quo than to look too closely at what is preached in the country's mosques and religious schools," the paper writes.

The Wall Street Journal then blames successive US administrations for their reluctance to lean too hard on their Saudi allies.

"Monday's murderous attacks provide an opportunity... for the US to signal that the status quo is unacceptably dangerous," the editorial concludes.

Coming unstitched?

The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, on the other hand, thinks the attacks should lead to closer collaboration between Riyadh and Washington.

"Is President Bush's victory in Iraq coming undone like a cheap cowboy boot?

Los Angeles Times

"By all indications, the suicide bombings in Riyadh were planned as a protest against the US presence in Saudi Arabia," he writes.

"But they may have the paradoxical effect of alerting Saudi leaders to the threat posed by the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, according to US officials and political analysts."

In an editorial, the Washington Post says that the coming weeks "will offer an important test of whether Saudi authorities, who co-operated only haltingly with US investigators after previous attacks, are willing to pursue this case aggressively and fully share any findings with the Bush administration".

The Los Angeles Times focuses on the bleak situation faced by the US in the Gulf region, despite the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"Is President Bush's victory in Iraq coming undone like a cheap cowboy boot?" the paper asks, before looking at some of the "unravelling stitches".

Foremost among them, according to the LA Times, is the decline of American influence in the region, as both US civilians could well choose to follow American soldiers out of the kingdom:

"So what will happen when Saudi Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil, as well as the spiritual capitals of Islam, is let adrift in the shifting sands of Islamopolitics?"