Another minister could even have been described as gloating when Charles Kennedy's clumsy attempt to acknowledge the link so patently struck a wrong note. The reason the Liberal Democrat leader's speech last week was received so badly was not just a matter of taste. What surprised me was that so many of those who opposed the war shied away from the crude allocation of blame. For so long Blair has been blamed for everything, from global warming to fat children.
Yet suddenly, when something struck close to home, there was an instinctive realisation that the causes of terrible deeds are a bit complicated. The more we know about the ideology that seems to have motivated the bombers, the more we realise that "Iraq" has been stripped of anything that might resemble a legitimate grievance and been twisted to fit an unreal story. Many opponents of the war accept that Blair and possibly even George Bush went into Iraq with the sincere intention of bringing freedom and democracy, but say that they were foolish or negligent in thinking that it would work. Very few readers of The Independent on Sunday think that the US and the UK invaded Iraq in order to humiliate and oppress Muslims. Yet that is what the followers of Osama bin Laden teach.What is most enraging about President Bush's conduct of the so-called war on terror is his apparent determination to feed the jihadists' mythology. I'd support any head who decides to use random tests."The survey reveals that more schools have now devised their own drugs policies - which range from "zero tolerance" of drug use to a more sympathetic stance for the one-off user of a drug.Mr Bell said: "We can be quite encouraged by the progress schools have made in making sure that youngsters know about drugs and the risks associated with them.". "After all, most young people say they don't indulge."In schools that use these methods, most will say this wasn't a decision taken lightly.
"Teachers must point out the dangers of illicit drugs."Thursday's report, the first look at drugs education by inspectors for eight years, will also reveal that pupils are demanding to be taught more about the dangers of binge-drinking and tobacco use.They believe they both pose a bigger threat to them than illicit drugs."We are recognising that there is concern about drinking, and more schools will emphasise that it's not smart to drink too much," Mr Bell said.The survey of anti-drugs lessons in 60 schools will also reveal that most are rejecting the idea of using random drugs tests or sniffer dogs to detect their presence.Mr Bell said many schools were worried these methods might draw attention to drugs and exacerbate any problems."The majority won't go down that route," he said. They hear about popstars taking drugs."It reinforces the idea that schools must take it seriously."He added that he could "confidently" predict that more primary schools would be giving priority to tackling the subject in the future."I'm afraid I tend to be a hardliner on this," Mr Bell said. With figures such as Pete Doherty and Prince Harry admitting to having used illegal substances, primary school children need the facts, according to David Bell. A report to be published by Ofsted, the education standards watchdog, on Thursday will reveal that a growing number of primary schools are giving anti-drugs lessons to seven- and eight-year-olds.Mr Bell, who is also chief executive of Ofsted, told The Independent on Sunday: "If you went to primary schools in most parts of the country, you would find children from seven to eight upwards have an understanding of drugs. The Government is conducting an audit of existing special needs provision, but Mr Cameron will say this is too "limited"..
