Hmm. Bush recently declared that he's done more for world peace than anyone else ever has, something that made me laugh and wonder if he's on drugs.
Of course, sitting around doing nothing automatically, magically creates world peace, right?
No, but killing everyone who might potentially pose a threat, blatantly violating international law, human rights and the will of the UN isn't always the way to go. You can acheive peace without killing; wars can be fought in a way that's less destructive. Take Clinton, for example. That man was largely responsible for several air-raids on illegal Iraqi SAM sites, played a large part in NATO's Kosovo operations, and contributed greatly to UN efforts in other parts of the Balkans. However, unlike Bush's achievements, Clinton's were brief, effective and reasonable precise. Also quite well justified, and with significant results - i.e. the capture and trial (in the Hague) of infamous war criminals. Clinton also made substantial progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict, short-lived though that progress was, without having to kill anyone.

In short, Bush's approach to peace has been one of "kill everyone else so they can't hurt us", hardly a peaceful solution by anyone's standards. It's far beyond simply "Does fighting an unpopular war disqualify you, then?"

Iraq was attacked a decade ago for invading Kuwait; Yugoslavia was struck because of the attempted genocide of the Kosovar people. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have hurtled two countries back several decades, and killed many thousands of innocents, with the single goal of (hopefully) capturing or killing a few undesirables, some of whom were guilty of serious crimes, others who were not.

Yay for peace.