N.Z. Bear has posted the questions for the Cross-Blog Debate between the people at Stand Down and those who disagree with them (I'm averse to using the term "pro-war"...I don't think many people actually like war. Rather, that it is the best course of action among ugly options).

Anyway, my proposed question, with slight rewording, tops the list to the other side. Here's the Bear's version:

1) If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration?

Which I think is an improvement over my original, asking for "advantages and disadvantages" of proposed policies.

I was disappointed in the questions from the other side, though. They seem uniformly weak. Here, for example, is their lead-off question:

1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?

Nice, huh? They're basically comparing proposed military action against Iraq by a coalition with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Lovely start, folks.

I'll answer all five in another blog, but honestly, I think I could have come up with better questions myself.

More later...