Did Obama Lie About Libya?

Remember how Bush used "weapons of mass destruction" to justify moving into Iraq? And do you remember all the cries of "Bush lied!" later, as those claims proved to be at most technically true? I wonder if any of those people will behave similarly today?

You see, Obama claimed that Gadhafi would be slaughtering civilians, essentially another genocide. But this claim doesn't fit the observed facts.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/04/obamas-war-of-choice

In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath." Two days later, he asserted, "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

Really? Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."

But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them"—but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.

"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."

So, Obama's claims are wrong. Did he lie in order to start a war, or was he just plain wrong? And will anti-war liberals be honest and fair, or will they ignore their own hypocrisy (not to mention Obama's actions) and proclaim that everything is hunky-dory?

I ask merely for information...