I know this is an obvious point to make, but hey, I'll make it anyway: anyone noticed the fact that even though Putin has morphed into a Prime Minister, he's still in charge? And this exchange demonstrates that the international community hasn't even batted an eyelash in response. Bush, at least, will become irrelevant once his Presidential term is over. Putin will likely remain the de facto ruler of Russia until his death, in the fine tradition of the "Secretary Generals of the Communist Party" of USSR.

The more things change...

You shouldn't ...; you don't want to end up like Bush

One problem. What's so bad about spending your retirement years cutting brush and mountain biking on your private estate? I say we push to give more meaning to the threat.

But will he get to have a puppy?

Sarkozy does a better job of looking into Putin's soul that Bush. That's what gives the French PM an edge on diplomacy.

Like Danp said. Put Shrub in prison for his various high crimes and then the threat would have more meaning.

Putin will get his eventually.

"Eat your vegetables! Do you want to be a loser like that President Bush?"

I like it.

With apologies to Willie Nelson; "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be George Bush".

This means Putin sees himself as being held in higher regard than the United States president and wants to keep it that way.

I'd weep if McCain had won.
I mop my brow with a wan smile instead.

My preferences for the future of George Bush:

1) Trial by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity.

2) Very public scorn and humiliation by the entire population of the world.

King George would work well as an ongoing figure of public ridicule. His retiring to his pig farm is a good starting point.

In many countries, the prime minister (that is, the leader of the majority party in the legislature) holds the power, and the president is a ceremonial office with little more power than the British monarch. So it's not surprising that Putin still runs the show.

Putin is repressive and authoritarian, but he's also widely popular, so the fact that he's in charge isn't anti-democratic (though the way he deals with opponents and the media is).

This implies a lot of things: that the world leaders in question fear negative public opinion, through some robust-enough democratic mechanism. And that the action is opposed by the right people. (If you have a government and press and majority of the population are Hutus, and the ethnic group on the receiving end of the aggressive war/torture are Tutsis, how unpopular do you think the actions would be?)

Bush, opening up two wars against countries marginally and not-at-all connected to the 2001 attacks, was canonized by our hero-worshiping, jock-sniffing cartoon press - at first.

The Thomas Friedmans and Joe the Plumbers were all very excited.

What changed? As with Israel's actions in Lebanon two years ago, an initially popular action turned somewhat sour with complaints of poor planning, not using enough force, and a few too many of "us" being injured in the course of killing thousands of "them".

Neither were unpopular wars and people didn't reject aggressive war-making as flawed in initiation, but in execution.

The press probably thought their own personal plans for exterminating the brutes would have worked better, and the public just got bored and wanted to change the channel - and probably jealous all that largess was being spent on unworthy Iraqis, instead of real Americans in Cleveland.

As far as torture - as long as it's not called torture, the American people have no problem with it. (And many don't mind even blatant torture, as long as it's only Muslims receiving it).

Did Bush's approval ratings drop after the hanging of Saddam Hussein? IIRC, there was a positive spike, actually.

What's so bad about spending your retirement years cutting brush and mountain biking on your private estate?

Don't forget the [mis]speaking circuit

What changed? -Flubber

Also it turned out the WMD and Al Qaeda arguments were false, the Halliburtons were looting the treasury, and some grunts took pictures at Abu Ghraib.

"Diplomats and human rights activists could use that tactic for all sorts of noble purposes: 'You shouldn't detain people without trials; you don't want to end up like Bush.' 'You shouldn't torture; you don't want to end up like Bush.' 'You shouldn't use secret prisons or invade countries that haven't attacked anyone or spy on your own citizens in secret; you don't want to end up like Bush,' etc.

Word. And this tactic will be even more effective if we put Bush's (and Cheney's) ass on trial for wor crimes.

Meanwhile, I just love Sarkozy -- the conservative whose election Bush hailed -- dissing W that way -- and Soul-Eyes Putin's agreement.

Score one for the French guy.

"You don't really want to steal that election - you don't want to end up like Bush"

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others." - Erasmus Desiderius

George W. Bush = Goofus.

Let us hope that Barack Obama = Gallant.

What changed? -Flubber

Also it turned out the WMD and Al Qaeda arguments were false, the Halliburtons were looting the treasury, and some grunts took pictures at Abu Ghraib. Posted by: Danp

WTF? Nothing changed. Most of the lies about Iraq and Abu Ghraib became public knowledge before the 2004 election. And with approximately 48% of voters favoring a doddering old fool who would have tried to pursue most of the Bush administration's failed policies, I still have problems with the belief that Obama has a "mandate."

Putin will get his eventually. Posted by: Winknandanod

No he won't.

In my lifetime, the only Soviet/Russian ruler who was "retired" before his time was Khrushchev. Otherwise, they all held on to their power until they died or, in the case of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, actually retired.

Putin is very much in the mold of the old Soviet dictators. Being a career KGB man, what else could he be?

You're evidently young enough not to remember Beria and Malenkov, then. But it's true that the only Russian leader since Lenin to have held the top power as long as Putin has and then be relieved of it involuntarily was Khrushchev.

Bush is the new Chamberlain.

In many countries, the prime minister (that is, the leader of the majority party in the legislature) holds the power, and the president is a ceremonial office with little more power than the British monarch. So it's not surprising that Putin still runs the show.

Its somewhat noteable that Russia's transition from a country where the President was the dominant power to one where the Prime Minister is the dominant power occurred at the precise moment Vladmir Putin stopped being President and started being Prime Minister. While its true that their are plenty of countries that have a comparatively weak President (or other Chief of State) and strong Prime Minister (or other parliamentary chief/head of government), those countries tend to do so as a standing constitutional (even if not via a written constitution) fact, rather than having had a strong President take his powers with him to the Prime Ministers office.

Hang George Bush by the balls and the two would cancel out. When Putin finally retires I want him presiding over Bush's war-crimes tribunal.

Note Putin's genial response. "End up like Bush" is a rhetorical touche, at best, and certainly not newsworthy.

Keep in mind what "end up like Bush" really entails. No accountability for his actions, no repudiation of any of his policies (though the word is still out on that point, but it's not looking good) and the prospect of a comfortable and prosperous retirement. At best it only means high unpopularity (after it's become irrelevant) that drags one's party down.

What should "end up like Bush" really mean? I would prefer it mean the same thing as "end up like Milosevic". But alas, there is just no way that is ever going to happen, not in this country. While we are a de facto world leader, we will never submit to an international court.

Every President wants to be known for a "legacy" that defines their Administration and what it gave American and the World. Well, "W" and fans, there you have it!

You're evidently young enough not to remember Beria and Malenkov, then. Posted by: DavidNOE

I would wager that 99.9999% of the people who visit this blog are too young to remember something that happened in the Soviet Union in 1953. Hell, I imagine even people in their late 70s or 80s have no memory of the event unless they were poli-sci professors at the time or worked in the Eisenhower administration.

Jeff II (@ 19:02),

I don't remember Malenkov, except as a name (without any info to go with it) but, Beria... I was 4 and in Poland, when Beria finally "got his". But, when I was 18, we were still singing songs about "comrade Beria, who knew (the) location of Siberia; oh, how well he knew it".

You memory of facts often depends on how closely certain events affected you and yours. My guess would be that, in Poland, every highschool kid *still* knows who Beria was. Granted, they don't visit this website (AFAIK)...

It must hurt Bush a lot to hear that the president of France (who he thought was one of his few supporters) gets chummy with Putin and the two make jokes about him and refer to him as a failure.

And it must hurt him even more to hear that this was not an anonymous and unconfirmed rumor, but, rather, that it was reported by Sarkozy’s chief diplomatic adviser Jean-David Levitte "in a news magazine" just before an EU-Russia summit was to start.

And the pain will keep growing for every hour that passes and Sarkozy has not denied this happened and Mr Levitte has not publicly announced that he misspoke.

Given the choice, Bush would probably have preferred many hours of water-boarding to this fate.