Range of options/options you don't get

It's been part of the argument that the Leader of the Free World makes concerning his cherished nuclear agreement with Iran -- it's either make the agreement, or prepare for war:

President Obama’s defense of the complex and painstakingly negotiated nuclear deal that his administration reached with Iran boiled down to a simple, if controversial, contention: The only real alternative to the deal was war.

Obama returned to that conclusion repeatedly Wednesday at a news conference that stretched for more than one hour.

“Without a deal,” he said in his opening statement, “we risk even more war in the Middle East.”

A few minutes later, in response to a reporter’s question, Obama dismissed concerns that the House and Senate might vote down the deal, forcing him to use his presidential veto. Wouldn’t a rejection of the deal by lawmakers make him question its wisdom?

“Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war,” Obama countered. “Those are — those are the options.”

So does Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agree with that assessment? According to testimony he gave on Capitol Hill yesterday, not so much:

President Obama’s claim that Congress must either back his deal with Iran or plan for war does not square with the advice he has received from his top general, Senate lawmakers learned on Wednesday.  

Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, never presented Obama with such a binary choice. “At no time did that come up in our conversation nor did I make that comment,” Dempsey told Senator Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) during a Senate hearing on the Iran deal. “I can tell you that we have a range of options and I always present them.”

What's more, Dempsey argued against relaxing the sanctions against Iran:

Dempsey also acknowledged that he advised the president not to agree to the lifting of sanctions pertaining to Iran’s ballistic missile program and other arms. “Yes, and I used the phrase ‘as long as possible’ and then that was the point at which the negotiation continued — but yes, that was my military advice,” he told Senator Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.). In the event the new deal goes into effect, the arms embargoes will expire over the next several years.

Alert readers may notice that I'm quoting National Review on yesterday's testimony, while I quoted a Washington Post story on Obama's initial claims. There's a tale behind that as well. Here is a screen shot of the Google Search I made to find information on yesterday's testimony:

Top of first page

More of first page

Last part of first page

What don't you see? Any coverage of the hearing from an MSM publication. If you do a different search, you get this from the Post:

The emphasis here is not on Dempsey contradicting the president's claims, but rather how All the President's Men are backstopping him and that the Senate is being irresponsible in questioning his wisdom. You do get to the point Dempsey makes, but you have to slog through nine paragraphs to get there. I get the distinct impression that the Post doesn't want you to know there's any disagreement.

We are now at a point where the MSM seems especially reluctant to tell the whole story, or are simply ignoring stories that are inconvenient. I watched the KARE news at 10 o'clock and they went on for the first five minutes of the newscast about Cecil the Lion, as they had the night before. It's defensible, I suppose, because there is a local angle, but if you wanted to know anything about this Congressional testimony, or about the continuing scandal involving Planned Parenthood, you'd have heard nothing on the broadcast. We need a free press, not a bunch of stenographers, and we're not getting it.