Perot Claim on Orders for U.S. Envoy to Iraq Denied : Gulf War: State Dept. says no written instructions existed. A cable took no stand on access to Kuwait oil.

The State Department on Tuesday denied presidential candidate Ross Perot’s claim that it had provided written instructions to the U.S. ambassador to Iraq for a meeting with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990, just days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

But the response did little to rebut general criticism that the Bush Administration failed to warn Hussein clearly against launching the attack.

The State Department released a cable sent to all U.S. ambassadors in the Mideast a day before the meeting that did not invite Hussein to seize the northern Kuwait oil fields, as Perot charged in a heated exchange with President Bush at Monday’s final presidential debate.

However, while warning Iraq not to use force to resolve its dispute with Kuwait, the July 24, 1990, cable declared that the United States was taking “no position” on Baghdad’s demand for access to oil fields there.

Administration officials said the cable did not constitute written instructions for April Glaspie’s meeting with Hussein because the meeting was called suddenly by the Iraqi leader.

The Adminstration’s response to Perot and the newly released cable provided more insight into the series of vague signals and direct messages that flowed between the Bush Administration and Hussein’s regime in the weeks before Iraq’s Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.

The response indicated that Perot’s accusation was at least partially unfounded. Perot charged that the Administration provided Hussein with a green light to seize northern Kuwait and that it has refused to disclose written instructions sent to former U.S. Ambassador Glaspie before her crucial meeting with Hussein.

The State Department said its response to Perot was ordered by acting Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who had spoken earlier in the day with Brent Scowcroft, the President’s national security adviser.

The detailed reply represented a rare public explanation of sensitive diplomatic cable traffic and a second unusual incursion by the department into campaign politics. Last week, Eagleburger took responsibility for political appointees’ expediting a search for Democratic candidate Bill Clinton’s passport records.

Bush, who seemed surprised by Perot’s allegations Monday night, encountered new questions about the affair Tuesday while taping an appearance on an Atlanta television station.

The President insisted that “every single paper, including secretary of state notes, which is unprecedented, was taken up by the United States Congress and looked at it in detail.”

It was apparent that the allegations found resonance among some undecided voters gathered for the TV appearance. The man who posed the question to Bush asked him “to respond to the allegations of Iraqgate or the Glaspie papers.”

“I hope that one is cleared up,” Bush replied, “because you had congressional hearing after congressional hearing. And my position on Iraq is that we did try to make Saddam Hussein into somebody a little more sane.”

Bush said his White House chief of staff, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, had explained the thrust of the policy to Perot after the debate. He said Perot replied that “he hadn’t known that.”

Perot could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Scowcroft also insisted Tuesday that Congress had been given access to all relevant documents in the Glaspie affair and that there had been no written instructions because she had not anticipated the meeting with Hussein.

He charged that Perot had “shot from the hip” and “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Eagleburger had decided to enter the fray to correct “several misstatements” by Perot.

“The United States has never, and I repeat, never, told or in any way indicated to Saddam Hussein that Iraq could take the northern part of Kuwait,” Boucher told reporters.

Boucher also said allegations that the Administration was withholding written instructions to Glaspie before the meeting with Hussein were false.

Glaspie was summoned to meet Hussein on July 25, 1990. At the time, Iraq had 35,000 troops massed on its border with Kuwait and Hussein was threatening to use them to force Kuwait to settle a dispute over the border and oil pricing policy.

The day before, she and other American ambassadors in the region had received a cable from Baker, then the secretary of state, advising them how to respond to Hussein’s threats.

“The U.S. is concerned about the hostile implications of recent Iraqi statements directed against Iraq’s neighbors, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” Baker’s message said. “While we take no position on the border delineation issue raised by Iraq with respect to Kuwait . . . Iraqi statements suggest an intention to resolve outstanding disagreements by the use of force, an approach which is contrary to U.N.-charter principles.”

On July 25, Glaspie told Hussein that Bush desired friendship with Iraq but hoped that the dispute with Kuwait would be settled peacefully, according to a copy of her classified account obtained by The Times.

Three days later, Bush conveyed much the same sentiment in a personal message to Hussein. A copy of Bush’s cable shows that he cautioned the Iraqi leader against the use of force without referring directly to Kuwait and repeated the U.S. desire for expanded ties.

Boucher refused to release Glaspie’s classified account of her lengthy session with Hussein or Bush’s cable to Hussein on July 28, 1990.

Frantz reported from Washington and Jehl from Georgia.