I don't for a moment doubt that Bush's decision to invade Iraq ultimately led to Iraq's liberation from SH
However, I don't think he deserves any awards for insisting on invasion over any other option. Lots of prominent statespeople have done brave & bold things pushing for peace lately (although you might not see much of it in the foreign news section), so I doubt that an ardent militarist is the best candidate. Incidentally, what's Bush's record on nuclear weapons treaties?
The justifications are a bit slender too. If it's related to 9/11, why not invade Saudi? If it's about fundamentalism, why not invade Algeria or Bangladesh? If it's about oppression, why not invade, ooh, 4 or 5 countries in Africa that were (and are) in a worse state? If it's about disobeying UN resolutions (or, indeed about WMD) then there are plenty of good targets, not least Israel or the USA itself. Or is there another justification this week?
Blair, I think, isn't quite such a bad candidate - he did actually try to resist war whilst looking for other ways to deal with the issue; but when Bush made war inevitable, he pragmatically (and, I think, wisely) decided that peace was no longer an option.
Kissenger got an award for trying to end the "police action" that had been going on since 1959. He didn't get it for bombing Cambodia.
Skeptical as I am about the "police action" - let's not spawn too many threads - I think that his predilection for carpetbombing south-east asia (didn't Laos also get 300kg of HE
for each hapless rice-farmer?), and arranging armed intervention in other countries, should really have disqualified him from receiving one of the world's most prominent peace awards.
Ditto for Arafat, of course.
In that sense, I consider the award completely discredited. But, hey, at least they could try... I dearly hope that Bush/Blair do not win the award. Whatever Bush's merits or achievements, he is in no way a peacemaker.