Oh I'm well aware of what happened, I just disagree with the extraordinary claims you're making:

1. Obama lied about Gaddafi

2. Obama "genocide" Libya

3. Obama had a "double tap policy where he would drone down civilian first responders"

But I'm happy to read through the links you gave and compare their content to these three extraordinary claims.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obama-ignored-congress-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/

Your first link: the nature of Obama's supposey misleading concerns are as follows. Obama said this:

"At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution"

The article accuses obama of deception, because technically France was the nation which introduced the resolution to the UNSC. Does this condemn Obama or is this just a silly rightist talking point? Verdict: Tan suit

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

The allegations in this article are as follows. First, early in the affair, a Hilary underling said, "at this time we are not persuing regime change", when later on, a regime change was persued. I think you'll struggle to convict him on that. The article doesn't give any evidence it was a lie at the time, later pointing out that air operations were complex, so maybe preplanned? But air operations do not a regime change make.

Secondly, Obama said we weren't supplying weapons to rebels, when actually Egypt and Qatar were and America knew all about it. So he was technically right, in a way that maintained opsec. What do I think after reading this one? Verdict: he ate a hotdog weird once

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/obamas-libya-war-was-an-illegal-disaster-but-at-least-he-owned-the-cons/

This one is a review of his memoirs. The headline says "illegal" and the op-ed author says, it was illegal because Congress are supposed to declare war - you know, that thing which Bush created a state of emergency to avoid, and has been renewed by every single president since.

Obama didn't declare war - he enacted a UNSC peacekeeping resolution, something which successive presidents from both parties have believed was legal. I didn't hear anyone in Congress trying to legislate that gap.

Verdict: another bullshit piece

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html

It's just war powers act again. I addressed above.

Verdict: get to the genocide already

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

This is not about Libya.

The crux of the Glen Greenwald nonsense, after he waffles for 15 paragraphs, is this: a drone strike in Pakistan happened, and Greenwald found this quote from a US official:

In the first strike, four missiles were fired on two vehicles in the Mana Gurbaz area of district Shawal in North Waziristan Agency, while two missiles were fired in the second strike at the same site where militants were removing the wreckage of their destroyed vehicles

Greenwald alleges that this is a double tap upon responders, but neither you nor he have any more information than what's there

Verdict: starting to suspect that u/Insider is full of shit

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/obama-administration-drone-strikes-war-crimes

This isn't about Libya, nor any of your three claims. I'm not here to defend Obama's drone program.

Verdict: ** u/Insider is a bullshitter and you're scraping the barrel now buddy**

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12?IR=T

This one has a bit more substance than Greenwald, but is just reporting on some tweets they found. I'll agree with you that the tweets seem to indicate a pattern of multiple consecutive strikes. What neither the tweeter nor the article proves is:

double tap policy where he would drone down civilian first responders

I don't see a policy, I don't see a pattern of civilian first responders, I simply see a pattern of multiple strikes. For example, if the targets are riding two vehicles, we would see the same tweets. Or if targets are in more than one location nearby, we would see the same results.

Verdict: I mean it's not great but still doesn't match up to your extraordinary claims

Last one now

https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/

Has no relevance to either of your three claims.

Verdict: now you're just throwing google results at me that ya didn't even look at first