Flurry of words that kept Cabinet in dark

There is a fascinating symmetry between the legal case for war with Iraq and the faulty intelligence. Both were flawed. And both, it is now clear, were over-sold to the public as open-and-shut cases when in fact there were grave doubts at senior levels.

The intelligence failings have been exposed in pitiless detail by the Hutton and Butler inquiries. What emerged was an extraordinary drama in which scientists such as Brian Jones and David Kelly tried to warn that facts were being mangled, only to be ignored by the juggernaut moving towards war.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst's resignation letter is the first hard proof that there was a drama of equal magnitude and ferocity being played out between the lawyers elsewhere in Whitehall.

Her letter reveals that the Attorney General appeared to change his mind a fortnight before the invasion, switching from sharing her view that it would be unlawful to deciding it was fully legal.

What is widely known through hints and Whitehall gossip is that the arguments were even more dramatic than that. In autumn 2002, Ms Wilmshurst and two other Foreign Office lawyers protested to Jack Straw that an invasion would be illegal, exposing British troops taking part to war crimes charges. Mr Straw overruled them.

They went instead to Lord Goldsmith and appealed to him. He appears to have sat on the fence until the following spring and it was his decision to come down in favour of the war that prompted her resignation after a 29-year career. Lord Goldsmith's role is at the heart of the affair.

The Government still refuses to publish his full legal advice, said to stretch to 13 pages.

It is almost certain that his full advice contained several caveats that would have raised doubts about the war's legality. He is understood to have said it could have been challenged in a court. Before submitting his advice, he demanded an assurance from Mr

Blair in writing that Iraq had continued to breach UN sanctions, which implies he was not sure of his ground. The Cabinet was only given an oral presentation of his legal advice. Ministers were never shown the full document. Some, like Clare Short, think they were kept in the dark.

So far, very little of this has been properly explored. The Government has refused an inquiry into the legal case for war, feeling that it has been dissected in more than enough detail already.

Tony Blair may well feel it is absurd to be trawling through historical details just when the benefits of the war are beginning to emerge, with democracy possibly taking root in the region.

The questions are too relevant to the style of governing from No10 to go away.