Those who could bear the exaggerated courtesies and compliments got to witness something extraordinary happen in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday: There was clear progress in the search for common ground on Iraq.

Robert Gates set the tone early in his confirmation hearing to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. Gates, a former head of the CIA, volunteered that “I am open to a wide range of ideas and proposals” and gave a crisp “no, sir” when asked whether we are winning in Iraq. He also said it was “too soon to tell” whether the invasion had been a good or bad idea.

Stop the presses: Truth breaks out in the Senate.

Gates’ performance was strong yet nimble, and such comments had both Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee praising him – and voting unanimously to approve his nomination. But infinitely more important is the possibility he could help guide a polarized nation toward a united approach. And not only on Iraq, but also in the larger war against Islamic terrorism.

Indeed, Gates cited unity-building as one of the reasons he agreed to return to Washington. Timing is everything, with the Iraq Study Group’s bipartisan recommendations now out.

The key exchange came when Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who knows a thing or two about partisanship over the war, asked about the need for American success. Gates jumped at the chance, saying, “I believe very deeply that one of the fundamental factors in our success in the Cold War was our ability to have a broad bipartisan agreement on the fundamental strategy on how to deal with the Soviet Union through nine successive presidencies and many Congresses.”

He struck exactly the right note by saying a similar approach to fighting terrorism would yield “consistency on the part of whoever is elected president in 2008 and beyond, so that we can carry this struggle in a way that they don’t think we’re going to cut and run, that they don’t think we’re going to walk away from this war on terrorism and so that they don’t think it’s going to be easy to start attacking us here at home because we’re not willing to take them on abroad.”

Panel chairman John Warner, R-Va., cheered him on, saying agreement at home was essential for “a generational war on terrorism.” Count me in, too, because, as I have written, we can’t very well demand that the Iraqis forge a political consensus if we can’t forge one ourselves.

Gates’ modesty and straight talk were in keeping with his reputation for being a team player over a career capped with a two-year stint running the CIA under the first President Bush. That he now returns to help rescue Bush II from Iraq provides soap-opera worthy drama, albeit one on the world stage.

For sure, the feel-good day bumped up against the devilish details of our mission. Several senators followed John McCain, R-Ariz., in suggesting we don’t have enough troops in Iraq, a subject Gates mostly ducked by saying he didn’t know enough. And although Gates promised to be independent and candid, he acknowledged that President Bush would make the final decisions.

Most disappointing was Sen. Hillary Clinton, who struck a sour note with a verbal victory dance over Rumsfeld’s departure. She rehashed the past and asked a series of odd questions about whether Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld were intelligent and patriotic and thought they were “acting in the best interest of the nation.” Gates had a puzzled look, as if to say “Where are you going with this?” before he answered yes.

Like a sharp stick in the eye, the tense moment was a reminder that not everybody is ready for a bipartisan approach.