Thiessen Falsely Accuses Vance of Disloyalty for Merely Stating a Reality Trump Himself Acknowledged
Source: Eddie Scarry. "Neocon Marc Thiessen Denies Reality And Lies About J.D. Vance." November 6, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says Vance simply stated a fact that Trump himself agreed with: the unpopular Iran war cost Republicans the midterms. So calling that 'disloyalty' is dishonest. He argues Thiessen is angry because he championed the war and can't tolerate anyone pointing out its downsides.
Conclusion
Marc Thiessen's accusation that J.D. Vance committed a 'stunning act of disloyalty' is false and dishonest, because Vance merely acknowledged an obvious reality about the Iran war's electoral cost, and Thiessen's reaction reflects typical neocon bad faith.
Premises
- Vance's tweet, citing internal GOP campaign data, said the Republican midterm losses resulted from the unpopular Iran war.
- Vance said the president himself had said so, and Trump, when asked, called Vance's tweet 'largely true.'
- Therefore Vance was not publicly disagreeing with or distancing himself from Trump, contrary to Thiessen's claim.
- The war is unpopular and voters reacted predictably to its fallout, especially surging gas prices that raised the cost of other goods.
- Neocons habitually label critics' acknowledgment of neoconservatism's failures as lies or bigotry, while praising supporters who say the same facts approvingly; Thiessen would have had no issue had Vance said the war was worth the cost.
- Thiessen predicted before the war there would be 'no downside' to striking Iran, so his anger at those who note downsides (major GOP electoral losses) reflects a discredited, self-interested position.
Assumptions
- Acknowledging an unfavorable fact about a policy's consequences is not disloyalty to the person who made the policy.
- Trump's endorsement of Vance's statement as 'largely true' settles whether Vance was contradicting him.
- The Iran war is the primary cause of the Republican midterm losses, as Vance's data claims.
- Thiessen's motive is ideological (defending the war) rather than a sincere reading of Vance's tweet.
- Thiessen's past predictions and associations discredit his current claims.
- Thiessen's description of Vance as 'distancing' himself can only be accurate if Vance contradicted Trump's own view.