Marc Thiessen is doing what neoconservatives do best: rewriting history and shooting the messenger.
The Washington Post content creator and Iraq War cheerleader published a piece this week attacking Vice President J.D. Vance, and The Federalist isn't having it. In an article published Tuesday under the headline "Neocon Marc Thiessen Denies Reality And Lies About J.D. Vance," the conservative outlet noted that Thiessen's credibility problem stems from his own record — specifically, his reported role advising President Trump that striking Iran would be "a good time for all."
That advice, according to The Federalist, came with a claim that there would be "no ... downside to striking" Iran. Of course, there were downsides. And Thiessen is reportedly furious that Vance noticed them.
The Federalist's criticism hinges on a simple point: Thiessen's piece rests on mischaracterizing Vance's position rather than engaging with it. The vice president, according to the outlet, was simply being honest about the main cause of a recent electoral loss — and for that, he's being branded disloyal.
THE LOGIC PROBLEM
Andrew Kolvet, a conservative commentator, took to X to dismantle Thiessen's argument directly, writing: "With all due respect to Speaker Gingrich, who I respect, Thiessen's piece rests on fatally flawed logic."
Kolvet continued: "If being honest about the main cause of Tuesday's historic loss is disloyalty, then his critics are are demanding lies, or worse, silence. Refusing to reckon with the truth."
The post, which has circulated widely among conservative accounts, cuts to the heart of the matter. Thiessen and his fellow travelers want to litigate tone and loyalty rather than substance — because the substance of what Vance said happens to be correct.
The Federalist's own X account promoted the piece Tuesday with a simple link and the headline, making clear the outlet sees Thiessen's attack as a proxy fight over the future of the Republican Party's foreign policy.
WHO IS MARC THIESSEN?
For patriots who don't spend their days reading Washington Post op-eds, Thiessen is a former George W. Bush speechwriter who has spent the better part of two decades urging American presidents to bomb, invade, or otherwise "liberate" countries across the Middle East. He was a vocal advocate for the 2003 Iraq invasion — the one that cost thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars, and destabilized an entire region.
According to The Federalist, Thiessen was one of the main voices in Trump's ear urging him to strike Iran. That's the same playbook that gave us Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It's the playbook candidate Trump ran against in 2016, and it's the playbook Vance has been publicly skeptical of.
Now that the vice president is being honest about the costs of those adventures, Thiessen is retreating to the only defense neocons have left: accusations of disloyalty.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR AMERICANS
The fight over Iran policy isn't an abstract Washington parlor game. It's about whether American troops get sent into another war in the Middle East — and whether the people who sold the last one get to keep selling the next one without consequence.
Vance, according to the reporting, said plainly what many Republicans were thinking: that the recent electoral result was tied to the party's failure to deliver on its America First promises, including staying out of foreign quagmires. That's not disloyalty. That's accountability.
The Federalist's piece makes clear that the conservative grassroots understand the difference between a vice president who tells the truth and a pundit who tells them what the blob wants to hear.
Our Take
Marc Thiessen has spent his career cheerleading for wars that killed Americans and enriched defense contractors, and now he's upset that J.D. Vance won't play along.
Let's be clear about what's happening here: a man who reportedly told President Trump there was "no downside" to striking Iran is now writing columns attacking the vice president for acknowledging there were downsides. That's not analysis. That's projection.
Every Republican who lived through the Iraq debacle should recognize the pattern. The neocons cry "disloyalty" whenever someone points out that their ideas cost us blood and treasure. They call honesty a betrayal. They demand silence.
Vance's supposed offense? Saying out loud what voters already know: the party that abandons America First gets punished at the ballot box. That's not a smear — it's the truth, and the American people deserve leaders who will speak it.
Patriots, the next time a Washington Post columnist tries to tell you who the real conservatives are, remember who wrote the checks for the last war — and ask yourself why Thiessen is so angry that Vance keeps reading the receipts.
Do you think the GOP should listen to the neocons who gave us Iraq, or the America First leaders who want to keep us out of the next one? Let us know.
