While Executive Orders have been introduced, I would like to address a question of Bobert's that he, incorrectly, states has gone long unanswered. This question relates to his suggestion that rather than going to war to effect regime change, the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein.

It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that this would not work for the following reasons:

Practically:
The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency (NO), or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (YES)

Legally:
It would be illegal there is an Executive Order in place prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of government/heads of state by US service personnel or by US intelligence/security operatives.
Reference:
President Gerald R. Ford's Executive Order 11905, relating to United States Foreign Intelligence Activities, dated 18th February, 1976. In Section 5 - Restrictions on Intelligence Activities
(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

OK Bobert question answered????
Acknowledgement even that an answer has been provided?????