OBAMA MAKES CHUCK HAGEL SACRIFICIAL LAMB

The president forced his Secretary of Defense to resign in order to make it appear as if Hagel was responsible for his foreign policy failures

In a video tape on ABC This Week, Martha Raddatz interviewed Chuck Hagel, the now fired Secretary of Defense. At the end of the video Raddatz said: “Add a thumping in the midterms, the president's approval rating on foreign affairs at a record low 31 percent and it was Hagel, seemingly the odd man out in White House debate, who was pressured to resign less than two years after he started.”

Raddatz then held a live interview about the Hagel firing with David Rothkopf, the CEO and editor of Foreign Policy, and The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens. Here is a transcript of that interview:

RADDATZ: And I'm joined now by David Rothkopf, the CEO and editor of "Foreign Policy" and author of the book, "National Insecurity," and Bret Stephens, the national security columnist at "The Wall Street Journal" and author of the book, "America In Retreat."

Glad you're here this morning, gentlemen.

David, I want to start with you.

You had been urging in your writing for the president to shake up his cabinet, his national security team.

But do you think they got rid of the wrong man?

DAVID ROTHKOPF, CEO AND EDITOR, "FOREIGN POLICY": Oh, yes. This -- Hagel was a sacrificial lamb. The reality is, the problem is in the White House. The problem is that this administration takes too many decisions there, micromanages too much from there and has divided themselves within the White House about whether they take a strong stance on a group like ISIS or they take halfway measures.

That causes problems down the line. Hagel is a victim of those problems, not a cause of them.

RADDATZ: One of the things, Bret, there were some whisperings that Hagel had sort of gone native in channeling the frustrations of the military.

So does that matter?

Is that the point?

Or do you agree with David?

BRET STEPHENS, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, I agree David in the sense that the whole Hagel -- Hagel saga from the moment of his nomination up until right now is so emblematic of everything that's wrong with Obama's management style.

I mean he went out of his way to pick a fight with Congress in -- in nominating Hagel. I don't think the White House then saw just the kind of opposition he would get or how poorly Hagel would -- would perform.

They also touted Hagel as an independent thinker, and yet when he turned out to be somewhat less politically pliant than they needed him to be, they -- they turned on him.

I mean I am almost tempted (INAUDIBLE) they should -- they should ask Ron Klain to be secretary of Defense, because if they want a political fixer in the Pentagon, they ought to get one.

RADDATZ: And -- and who -- we've heard the names. Michele Flournoy already turned it down. We've got Jack Reed, who wasn't interested either.

Does it matter who he puts in?

I know the names floating out there -- Jeh Johnson, Ash Carter?

ROTHKOPF: It -- it probably doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, because the White House micromanages, because so many of the decisions are taking place in the White House, this person is being seen as a -- somebody to follow through on that.

There are some names that are a little stronger. I mean Ash Carter is a -- is a very tough, independent guy. And they picked him, they would be sending a message that they do want diversity of opinion more than it seems to right now.

RADDATZ: Let -- let's move on to the crises that we're facing in the coming years.

A lot of presidents want a legacy in foreign policy. President Obama seems to be concentrating on domestic issues. But these crises are going to slap him in the face. ISIS isn't going away. Syria is not going away. Ukraine is not going away.

Just take us forward here, Bret.

STEPHENS: Well, the scary thing is that we have a series of crises and we have adversaries who think that there's a weak president in the White House who's not going to act against them. And I think that's true of Vladimir Putin. I think that's true of the Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran, throughout the world.

So it's important not to just put in the technocrat in the Pentagon.

You know, you have a kind of a flock of seagulls here with -- with the Obama administration team. There needs to be a hawk in there in a prominent position.

So I think the president would be making a mistake by putting in a technocrat like Ash Carter. He needs a strong voice.

RADDATZ: We've got about 10 seconds, David. And just looking forward with the foreign policy crisis.

ROTHKOPF: I think it's going to get worse, it's going to be very tough the last couple of years for the president.

RADDATZ: Well, on that note, thank you very much for joining us.