The Federalist94%
The Burning Hatred From Neocons Is Good For J.D. Vance In 2028 67%
By Eddie Scarry97%
7/31/2026, 1:41:46 PM
Keywords: 2028, Bret Stephens, Donald Trump, Iran, J D Vance, Marc Thiessen, Media, Neocons, New York Times, Washington Post
BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 60.3% saturation with 438 hits. Analysis detected 1,920 faulty-reasoning hits from 726 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.6% and a BS Rank of 67% (9,096 of 26,850 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.10% of the article peer group.
President Trump hasn’t yet endorsed J.D.
Vance for the 2028 Republican nomination, but the vice president got the next best thing: a rebuke from Bret Stephens and Marc Thiessen — in the same month!
In a piece of content for The New York Times last week, Stephens, who once called himself a “Biden conservative” and who voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, confidently declared Vance “by far the worst person ever to hold the office.”
Mind you, Stephens has called himself a conservative for decades, and yet as far back as 2012 was rooting against Republicans in every nationwide election, so there isn’t much worth considering here other than recognizing such a full-throated denunciation by Bret “Bed Bug” Stephens can only help whoever is on the receiving end.
Worth slightly more attention is what Thiessen wrote this week in The Washington Post.
Recall that Thiessen is the Post content creator and former George W.
Bush speechwriter whom Trump, for inexplicable reasons that may be explained in the future, has reportedly been reading and consulting privately about foreign affairs.
Thiessen took an opportunity on Thursday to continue the very obviously coordinated attack on Vance planned by a slimy mix of neocons, lazy Republicans, and Israel Firsters.
Evaluating the Iran war, which has grown increasingly unpopular, even among Republicans, Thiessen wrote, “Perhaps it’s time for the president to take the advice of those who have delivered him success in Iran — not those like Vance who have failed him.”
Thiessen blames the failures in Iran not on what certainly look like short-sighted decisions by the commander in chief, but on Vance, whose primary responsibility in the conflict has been negotiating its end with Iran's leaders.
That’s at least honest.
But let's look at what Thiessen says a real victory, without any negotiation, would look like.
He wrote that the war's objectives are: “eliminate remaining [Iranian] leadership figures; further entomb Iran’s nuclear sites; take out Iran’s remaining ballistic missile sites; destroy the economic and energy infrastructure that provides the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a financial lifeline, as well as key highways, railroads, airports and seaports by which the regime gets financial assistance from bordering countries; and demolish Iran’s remaining defense industrial base so it cannot rebuild its destroyed capabilities.”
Then, with presumably a straight face, Thiessen said, “That’s it.”
*Oh, is that all?!
*
Well, not really.
Thiessen, perhaps to his credit, didn't even pretend to hide the ball.
Though having concluded, “That’s it” — just the complete decimation of a global energy supplier's entire transportation infrastructure and economy — Thiessen went on to do the equivalent of, *But wait!
There's more!
* He then said the U.S. would simply have to commit to keeping American troops just off the shore of Iran in perpetuity and “provide covert support” to Iranian rebels, in hopes that they might fight their own government.
You know, just like they are now!
Wait, that's not actually happening, is it?
Oh well!
“Once these targets have been struck,” wrote Thiessen, “the president should announce an end to major combat, keep the blockade in place, open the Strait of Hormuz and then provide covert support to the Iranian people to help them undermine and eventually bring down the regime.
…”
Furthermore, nearly half a year into this war, Thiessen said all of that would only take a “few weeks.”
Well, why didn't you say so!
Marc, hold my hand when I tell you this: The president has already announced an end to major combat and said the Hormuz Strait is opening.
Before saying the opposite.
Multiple times.
The problem is that, even though Thiessen in his piece credits the president for “decimating its ballistic missile capability” and “annihilating its conventional military forces,” Iran has managed to continue attacking U.S. targets and killing Americans.
And whatever claims that the Strait is “open,” ship crews are still terrified of passing through it.
And it's not because of Jaws.
Bret Stephens and Marc Thiessen are Israel First neocons who care about their foreign allegiances and preferences for war.
The public record, to date, is that J.D.
Vance is not in sync with that crowd.
That’s why they hate him.
It’s why they're faulting him for America's deteriorating standing in this war.
They want him destroyed.
Speakers
2speakers37%attributed speech455writer words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageBret Stephens
41 attributed words15% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.