From yes men to no men

After the Democrats swept the election, taking control of the House and the Senate, one of the first things to happen was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's biggest "yes man."

During the past six years we have grown accustomed to all of Bush's cabinet just going with the flow and repeating what he says. A favorite recurring segment on Comedy Central's The Daily Show is a long string of clips of various cabinet members repeating the exact same words on different news shows.

But what happens when the yes men finally stop saying "yes"? Will new control in D.C. finally make GOP politicians take a critical look at their fearless leader?

Here's an interesting story about the recent visit between President Bush and President Jacques Chirac of France:

Bush wanted to let Chirac know that an Israeli attack on Iran [HTML_REMOVED] particularly Iran's nuclear installations [HTML_REMOVED] should not be ruled out. Indeed, after the talk Bush said he would understand if such an attack were to take place.

Telling leaders of an allied country that you wouldn't mind if they launched an attack on another country is more or less commensurate with saying that you wish that other country would be attacked.

But in a heartening display of independent analysis of the situation, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently addressed European diplomats on the reasons the United States isn't striking Iran: a desire to solve the matter with a peaceful solution, not enough intelligence on any program's locations and become a strike would be ineffective in destroying the country's nuclear capabilities.

The cabinet's approach to Iran seems a definite change from its tone in addresses to the U.N. prior to the Iraq invasion, which included drawings and speculations instead of actual images and reliable intelligence.

As GOP leaders under Bush continue to see the dissatisfaction in the American public over current policy, they will be forced to admit that if they want jobs after his term in office, they will need to maintain the confidence of other Republicans, Democrats and the public at large.

This means they are going to have to start asking more questions and keeping Bush in check.

Perhaps this shift toward critical questioning isn't so surprising. After all, politicians will do what they must to stay popular, even if it means mediating their biases and working with members of the opposite party.

And this benefits us all, because the best form of government is one where different parties work together.

Columnist Hunter Kincaid: hunterkincaid@thedaily.washington.edu