The missing element of King Fahd coverage

One thing has been noticably lacking in all the coverage of Saudi King Fahd's death. Can you guess what it is?

Funerary detail? Nope, the NYT's got that covered here.

Effect on the oil market? Forbes is all over that here.

History? Covered.

How about this then: Incredulity that ANYONE in the western world should give more than passing notice to the death of the ruler of one of the globe's most repressive, backward regimes.

Perhaps if his death were to lead to modernization, democratic revolution THAT would be important. Instead though western leaders breath a sigh of relief because King Fahd's succesor will almost certainly bring virtually no change to the kingdom. Why? Because when a country sits atop a quarter of the world's oil reserves no change is for the better.

Can anyone question that the energy politics which allow the world's most advanced nations to continue beholden to the world's most archaic regimes is at least criminally negligent, if not downright treasonous? Can anyone question that BushCorp™, in its never-ending quest to enrich its oil-biz patrons has unerringly continued to support policies which also enrich regimes like that of the Saudis?