Iran-Contra Figure Tells of Bush Meeting : Trial: Former CIA operative testifies that he and the then-vice president did not discuss secret efforts to supply Nicaraguan rebels.

A former CIA operative who coordinated arms shipments to the Nicaraguan Contras testified Tuesday that he changed his mind about leaving Central America after a 1986 meeting in the office of then-Vice President George Bush.

The testimony by CIA operative Felix Rodriguez, which came at the perjury and obstruction trial of former CIA spy chief Clair E. George, did not implicate Bush because Rodriguez said the secret 1986 efforts to supply the Contras were not discussed in Bush’s presence.

But the introduction of Bush’s name indicates the high political stakes surrounding the trial of the highest CIA official to be indicted in the Iran-Contra affair.

The affair during the Ronald Reagan Administration involved funds from covert arms sales to Iran that were secretly funneled to the Nicaraguan Contras.

Rodriguez said he had requested the meeting with Bush to notify him he was planning to leave El Salvador because his idea of introducing helicopter tactics to the El Salvadoran air force had caught on and he wanted to be reunited with his family in the United States.

But Rodriguez said he changed his mind after he drew praise at the meeting from then-U.S. ambassador to El Salvador Edwin G. Corr for the “magnificent” work he had been doing to help fight Communist-backed insurgents.

Four of the nine counts against George accuse him of giving false statements to House and Senate committees in October, 1986, about his knowledge of Rodriguez’s involvement in the Contra resupply work. While Rodriguez testified that he did not meet George until just last month, his testimony did corroborate that of the government’s main witness, Alan D. Fiers, former chief of the CIA’s Central American task force.

In trying to introduce his “helicopter concept” to the El Salvadoran struggle in 1985, Rodriguez said he turned to Donald P. Gregg, then Bush’s national security adviser. Gregg, now U.S. ambassador to South Korea, had been his CIA superior in Vietnam in 1970-72 when Rodriguez developed the helicopter tactics, which included operating at near-treetop level.

Gregg arranged a meeting with an assistant secretary of state, and Rodriguez also met Bush in January, 1985, where they discussed the helicopter concept but not Contra resupply, Rodriguez testified. Two months later he was in El Salvador, where he stayed until 1989.

Rodriguez said he became involved in the Contra resupply at the request of then-National Security Council aide Oliver L. North. In a Sept. 20, 1985, letter to Rodriguez, introduced as evidence at George’s trial Tuesday, North asked for help in lining up El Salvadoran cooperation in the secret effort.

Rodriguez persuaded Salvadoran officials to provide the requested assistance and did other coordinating work for the resupply flights, he testified under questioning by chief prosecutor Craig A. Gillen.

He said he later became concerned about the resupply work, noting that the Contras were being charged $9 for $3 hand grenades and that a former CIA official involved in the program had a questionable past. In August, 1986, he relayed these concerns to Gregg, he said.

When he received word that a Contra resupply plane had been shot down by Nicaraguan government forces on Oct. 5, 1985, he said he attempted to notify Gregg, but was unable to reach him. Instead, he said he reached Gregg’s deputy, Sam Watson, and asked him to pass the word on.

Testifying earlier Tuesday, Rep. Matthew F. McHugh (D-N.Y.), a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he expected truthful answers from George at a hearing nine days after the plane was shot down, but was deceived.

George’s lawyer, Richard A. Hibey, portrayed the committee’s hearing as part of a political battle between the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican Administration over Central American policy.

McHugh, however, would not go along with the description. “My own view is that it was not a partisan question, but that there were genuine differences of opinion over the wisdom of the policy.”