The US-led NATO assassinated Gaddafi largely for oil interests.
Uhh... no, they didn't.
Demonstrations began. Things escalated. A civil war broke out. Gaddafi and the government were being naughty (using aircraft and snipers to target demonstrators.). Rebels didn't like that. The choice that NATO had was either get involved to prevent more bloodshed or allow the fighting to continue.
There is no need to assign responsibility to "oil interests". Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The war has many similarities to Iraq, including the aftermath left by a power vacuum.
The war also had some key differences... most importantly, the Libyan war was initiated largely by internal politics and protests that escalated, whereas the Iraq was largely initiated by external factors (namely the U.S. and certain allies).
At least Bush went to Congress for his stupid war, Obama's war was unconstitutional.
That is... fuzzy to say the least. The constitution specifies that congress has the ability to "declare war", but that the president is head of the military (and the president does need the authority to deploy forces on short notice to handle emergencies, outside of formal wars.)
The line between a "war" and a simple military deployment is not always clear cut and hasn't really been tested in the courts.
Obama was also pretty weak standing up to Putin.
Maybe, maybe not. (Not sure if you're referring to Russian meddling in the election or just foreign policy in general.)
About election interference, there were a lot of factors that had to be juggled:
- As president, he would have to ensure his activities didn't unfairly influence the election. Having the FBI/CIA/etc. point out that "Russia helped Trump" in big, bold letters might be seen as the government overreach.
- Obama did try to get the Republicans to put together a bipartisan joint response, but McConnell (you know, the REPUBLICAN senate leader) vetoed the idea.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016