Seattle City Council candidate Joe Szwaja is teaching a high school class that asks if the United States helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Szwaja teaches history at Seattle's Nova High School, an alternative public school. The senior class he's offering is called: "September 11/Iraq War: What happened, why did it happen, and where do we go from here?"

According to the course description, the class will ask provocative questions:

"Did the attacks take place in the manner reported by the major US news media? Were Osama Bin Laden and his followers indeed responsible for these brutal murders? Did the US government do all they reasonably could to avert the attacks, or did the US bungle its sincere attempts to stop this incidence of terrorism? On the other hand, was the US government itself part of planning the attacks or at least involved in them in some way, perhaps in making sure nothing was done to avert them?"

The course was brought to reporters' attention by Cathy Allen, a political consultant working for Szwaja's opponent, incumbent Jean Godden. That looks to me as an endorsement of sorts that Godden takes Szwaja's candidacy seriously.

Szwaja told Times City Hall reporter Bob Young today that he does not believe the U.S. government was involved in planning the attacks or making sure they weren't stopped. Szwaja said:

"I want to teach students to think about important questions and I go out of my way to provide different perspectives."

Is it irresponsible, though, to suggest to students that the U.S. was part of the attacks?

"The main thing I try to do is teach classes that engage students from a variety of perspectives. I pride myself on that. A big part of the class is fact-checking. My goal is not to tell students what happened. My goal is to teach them to think carefully, systematically and pursue answers for themselves."

The course will also look at broader questions:

"How has September 11 affected US civil liberties, Muslim Americans and the way we see politics? How and why are the events around September 11 viewed differently in various countries and regions around the world? What are some of the roots of the disagreements between the US and the Muslim world which helped lead to the many conflicts in which our government is currently engaged?"

UPDATE: There are those who not only want to ask those questions, but are convinced there has been a coverup.

AND MORE: At The Stranger, Paul Constant has a story about the 9/11 Truth Movement:

It's false to refer to Truthers as conspiracy theorists because, as they're quick to point out, they don't have a theory. All they have are questions. Some of them believe that the government is guilty of knowing about the attacks and simply allowing them to happen, others believe that the planes were remote controlled and that no passengers died in the attacks, and still others believe that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile and that no plane was involved at all. Many Truthers believe that Flight 93 couldn't have crashed in Pennsylvania since the crash site is only 6 feet wide by 20 feet long. A radical few even claim that no planes struck the Twin Towers, despite what billions of eyes saw that day. The debate within the movement is intense and not always polite -- for instance, not all Truthers believe that doubting the planes' involvement is a good idea, and that to deny the deaths of hundreds of air passengers on September 11th is disrespectful and stupid.

It's well worth a read.

A Republican congressman from New York who was in Iraq last week with Congressman Dave Reichert says the trip convinced him U.S. troops should withdraw. Rep. Jim Walsh, a moderate, has struggled with support for the war, according to the Democrat and Chronicle. But no longer:

"Before I went, I was not prepared to say it's time to start bringing our troops home," Walsh said. "I am prepared to say that now. It's time."

Reichert has not yet been available for an interview about his trip.

Reichert and Walsh were on a list of 12 Republicans targeted in new radio ads from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to The Politico. The ads target Republicans supporting The Bush administration's Iraq strategy.

"This August we're going district by district to urge Republicans to stop obstructing progress and work with us to end the war in Iraq," said DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.). "Republicans who continue to vote in lock step with the President Bush's failed Iraq policy will be held accountable."

Since the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks I've spent some time thinking about how this day will be commemorated. I wonder if in 50 years it'll become more like Pearl Harbor Day -- a moment of brief reflection, at best, for what was supposed to live in infamy -- or maybe something even less meaningful, like many of our national holidays have become.

When I wrote about this in 2002, the story included a quote from Stanley Friedman, who that day was out in the hills hiking. He had a pretty good summation of what 9/11 had already become:

"This is going to be a day of speeches and photo opportunities and so on and so forth," said Friedman, a 75-year-old cartographer from Mercer Island. "It's primarily a politician's day."

Today in The News Tribune, Pete Callaghan says we are supposed to call today "Patriot Day." But he sees it like Friedman did. He says "it may as well be Politics Day."

The primary form of commemoration -- in Washington, D.C., at least -- will be to take political shots disguised as lessons learned.

Under the cover of honoring the dead, too many will exploit them for partisan gain. They will reference one of the most potent symbols in American history to paint their own beliefs as noble and their enemies' beliefs as crass.
Here's Callaghan's plea:

To honor those who died on 9/11, how about we agree not to exploit them for political gain for a full 24 hours? It's hardly a sacrifice, given that there are 364 other days -- 365 in presidential election years. Make Patriot Day about patriots, not partisans.

Sounds like a good idea. I looked this morning at the websites of the national political parties and their campaign committees. It seems to me that only Howard Dean at the Democratic National Committee is making an overt partisan point on this day. His statement says:

"On the sixth anniversary of September 11, we honor those who were killed in those tragic attacks, the family and friends who still grieve their loss, and the survivors who continue to suffer. On that day, our country and our world changed forever. Today, Democrats also renew our commitment to fighting the real war on terror. Six years after the attacks, we are not as safe as we should be. We remain committed to fighting al Qaeda where they are and implementing policies that make our country safer and more secure."

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan doesn't mention party in his statement:

"Six years ago, terrorists attacked the United States of America. The searing memories will never fade for most Americans, and for the families and friends of those we lost, neither will the sorrow. We should never forget the tremendous bravery we saw that day, or the outpouring of kindness and generosity from every state, every county, and every city in the days and weeks that followed.

"Today, thousands of our brave young men and women are still fighting to keep our enemies from striking us again. Our thanks go out to them, and to everyone who is working to make sure we never see another 9/11."

Are there politicians exploiting this day? Help me keep track and use the comments to post examples you find today. With the Senate hearing the Iraq surge report today I am sure there will be numerous references to this day.

There's nothing wrong with remembering and commemorating 9/11. I wouldn't want the day ignored. But is it acceptable today to try to make partisan points off the anniversary of the tragedy?

Acting King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, a Republican, sent out a press release Monday touting endorsements from prominent Democrats in his race against Democrat Bill Sherman.

The Democrats are endorsing Satterberg because of his 17 years of experience as Norm Maleng's chief of staff and his commitment to continue to run the office in a nonpolitical, professional manner.

Satterberg has relied heavily on the Maleng legacy of non-partisan management of the prosecutor's office. He told me:

"There should be one office where partisanship doesn't rule the day and it ought to be this one."

But the Republican Party sees the race differently. A fundraising letter from King County GOP Chairman Michael Young calls the late Maleng a "committed Republican" who had helped keep the office in GOP hands for 60 years. And he says much more than just party control is at stake in the race:

Now is not the time to surrender this office to an extreme fringe liberal who is incapable of administering justice for all King County residents.

The letter also talks about the need to re-elect King County Councilwoman Jane Hague. But defending Satterberg's seat, the last Republican in a county-wide office, is paramount. Young says in the letter he has "never felt more passionate about defending a seat in county government as I do this one."

It is crucial that we maintain control of the Prosecutor's office. If we do not, justice will not be served to the citizens of our county. Folks, there is a reason Republicans have been elected to pursue justice in this county for six decades running, and it is up to us to remind voters why.

So what does Satterberg think of Young's attack on Sherman? In many ways Young's letter seems to be precisely the sort of partisanship that Satterberg says has no place in the prosecutor's office. I asked him about it this morning.

"I'm happy to have help of anyone that wants to help me. But I don't agree that justice would come to a grinding halt in King County. I just think I'd do a better job."

Satterberg said he didn't see the letter until it arrived in the mail. But he has no objections. He says Young is doing what he needs to do to raise money for the county party. It's clearly a different approach than Satterberg takes in his public campaigning, where he focuses on his years of experience in the office and continuing Maleng's non-partisan ways.

"Those other labels and stuff, that's what party chairmen do. ... You have to raise money for your party in the way you think gets some sense of urgency in the troops."