I am just constantly amazed at how some people on this board are continually trying to bend the world so actions by a certain leader will seem to fit the rules.
Well of course. If we are in a vacuum, we are likely both dead. 
This is certainly true in the sense that they are apples and oranges (that they have lived different lives). But their actual comparative morality depends on which morality you accept. I may agree that Saddam is morally worse than Bush. Or worse than Clinton. Or worse than my own mother. But I should not ignore the fact that others may not consider Saddam’s crimes worthy of a death sentence executed by my mother. Even if I was in a position to prove that Saddam was not morally justified in seeking retribution on my mother for an attempt on his life (which may be more difficult to establish than you imagine, as proving a universal moral isn’t at all easy), I would still have to face the reality that Saddam (as well as those opposing the assassination for whatever reason) would not agree with the legitimacy of her act regardless of my “proof”.
As such, the morality of a retaliation becomes less of a concern than the practical realization that people will always find internal justifications for whatever position they choose. Consequently, it would be reasonable to proceed as if assassination in turn is always justified, even if there is no moral equivalency. That is, if I pull a gun and take a shot at your hypothetical child-murderer, I should expect that he would feel obliged shoot back at me. I should also even expect that others might feel he was justified in doing so, if (for example) they are of the mind that child-murder does still not warrant summary execution.
Is anybody here even saying that?