Traitor or Truthteller?

Scott McClellan didn't make a lot of new friends this week. While the left lauded the candidness of his memoir "What Happened," many complained that the former White House spokesman should have spoken up sooner. On the right, McClellan has been called a "betrayer" and "opportunist." NEWSWEEK's Daniel Stone spoke with McClellan about the fallout and his plans. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What has the reaction been from the inner circle of your former colleagues?
Scott McClellan: There are a lot of supportive e-mails and phone calls I've been receiving. I expected some of the hostility that would come with it, but if it takes talking about unpleasant truths to force some kind of change in Washington, then so be it. I was raised in a family that instilled in me the importance of public service and of speaking up to make a positive difference. I believe with this book, I am being loyal to the values I was raised on and loyal to what's most important, and that's the truth. This is a sincere expression of my views after a lot of reflection of how things went so badly off course. I know it's difficult for some former colleagues to agree that things went off course, but I think things turned out a lot differently than we all expected. Talking openly about it is the only way we can learn from it.

Karl Rove said you sounded like a "left-wing blogger." Did that irk you?
[Laughs.] No, I expected the initial reaction to some extent. I was a little surprised by the personal nature of it. The White House would have probably preferred that I not go out and speak so openly. I think it's important for not only today but future generations to learn from what I experienced. That's the objective.

Was the book heavily edited?
Not at all. I went through a great deal of reflection and researched these issues carefully. The book evolved from where it started off. I came to some different conclusions than I initially thought I might reach, and the end result is exactly what I wanted to accomplish.

Despite all your criticisms, you still say the president is a decent guy.
Look, I have a lot of personal affection for the president. There's been a lot of discussion in the wake of this. The White house has been suggesting that I had some sinister motives behind some of these issues described in the book. But when people read the book, they'll see that it's a serious book that was carefully thought through. What I'm saying is that we got too caught up in this personal campaign culture and the excesses. That's what contributed in a big way to things veering so badly off course. We were not as open and forthright as we should have been. It's more a question of judgment than people's motivations.

The heavily partisan culture in Washington hasn't changed, as President Bush promised to do when first elected. What happened?
That's one of the things I wanted to look at: why did this popular bipartisan governor of Texas become such a polarizing and divisive figure? What happened? As I reflected upon my experiences and my time there and what I lived and learned, I came to the conclusion that the responsibility lies first and foremost with the president and his administration. No one has a larger bully pulpit from which to set the right tone and elevate the discourse and change the way Washington works. We fell far short of that because we got caught up in the way the Washington game is played, rather than changing it.