I don't know if President Obama knew how many there were or not. If the CIA et al. were doing their job, he probably did, wouldn't you think?
However, if you look at your source, you'll notice that what they list is the number of "fighters" who are "on the front lines."
I suspect, in your outrage at undeclared war going on and in your outrage and discontent with Democrats in general, you may be overlooking the fact that Kadaffi's forces are being paid and that the insurgents are not being paid. This is often the case with asymmetrical warfare. The ranks of the insurgents rise and fall depending on any number of factors, not all of which have to do with the percent of the population that supports them. George Washington wrote a number of dispatches, I'm told, complaining of this, to congress. The forces with T.E. Lawrence waxed and waned as well; and both these commanders won.
What was the conclusion you were suggesting that we should draw as a result of the evidence you were laying before us?
If it was that the insurgents were and are not worthy of our support, you may well be correct; but not, insofar as I can tell, on the basis of the information you present. If they are, in fact, the basis of some more Democratic form of government in Libya, supporting them would be in line with our Democratic ideals. Simply because supporting them could be in line with our stated Democratic ideas does not mean that they will be, sadly, in line with what has become our "national interest."
Should this last be the case, perhaps we should discuss at what point our "national interest" and our stated Democratic ideals parted company. Hey.