uncomfortable position? >> i think it is important that we stand for the rule of law and democracy and constitutional order. when i talk about supporting the work that has been done in the oas, and a distinguished delegation in honduras, i think that all parties involved have to take a step back and look at how the institutions within their democracy are supposed to be working. there are certain concerns about orders by independent judicial officials should be followed and the like.

the extraordinary steps taken of arresting and expelling the president is our first and foremost problem right now. then we want to work with the parties, as i said, to return to a rule of law. and that means for everybody. . . you know, i spoke to ambassador hill today. i have spoken to him a number of times in the last couple of weeks.

but the and general codey yair no have reiterated their believe that the iraqi forces are up to the job. the u.s. remains prepared to assist if necessary. but there is a great deal of confidence in the fundamental ability of the iraqis to began to protect their citizens. having said that, we have seen what has happened. a terrific bombings and the last of -- and the loss of one hot -- and the loss of hundreds of lives. our assessment is the iraqis are ready and willing and able to step up. we will continue our presence here. we're not pulling out. we will fulfil the requirements under the sofa and we will do what is necessary. >> i will ask all questions.

>> why am i not surprised? [laughter] >> i am glad you are well. >> a different form of arms control. [laughter] quite challenging. >> the sense we have been getting is the u.s. policy is somewhat in abeyance right now as we wait to see this fluid situation on the ground in tehran involved. i wonder what you would say to the argument that any prospects for meaningful and engagement by the u.s. and the p5 plus one are drastically set back by what we have seen. you have gotten your answer to your teams to engage the real shame. you have seen an authoritarian regime and ask itself. -- unmask itself.' they are never going to strike a

bargain. >> there is reason for us to be cautious in our dealings with iran. there is not yet a final outcome of the process that they are engaged in internally her to demonstrate to their own people the credibility of the electoral process that has just been completed. so i am well aware of the daunting challenges ahead of us or any group that tries to deal with the regime. having said that, i think the president has made clear that we're going to watched this unfold and we're going to act in america's national interests. that is what this is about. it has never been about iran as

much as it is as the values and the goals of the u.s. we remain committed to doing all we can to try to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. we are going to watch this and we are going to engage our actions accordingly. >> what sense do you get that these events might have enhanced the prospects for engagement? >> i am not going to do a value judgment on what they may or may not have done. i am going to reiterate that everything we intend to do is in light of how we view america's long-term interests and security, as well as those of friends and allies around the world. >> secretary, if i could return to honduras to trend -- to clarify our point? under the foreign assistance act and the millennium challenge, even though there are triggers,

you're not going to cut off that a? >> we are assessing. this has been a fast-moving set of circumstances over the last several days. we are looking at that question now. much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order went -- within a relatively short time, that would be a good outcome. we're considering the implications, but our priority is to work with our partners in restoring the constitutional order in honduras. >> returning the president himself -- he would insist on that? >> we're working with our partners. we have not laid out in need

demands that we are insisting on because we are working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives which are shared broadly. we think that the arrest and expulsion of a president is cause for concern that has to be addressed, not just with respect to whether aid continues but whether democracy in honduras continues. >> madam secretary, back to our ron, they have announced that after limited recount they considered the vote invalid. is this enough -- do you plan on recognizing the administration of ahmadinejad? we have seen this crisis illustrate a real division in the regime. is this the beginning of the and? >> i am are going to speculate on what will happen.

-- i am not going to speculate on what will happen. i do not think that is going to disappear by the finding of a limited review of a relatively small number of ballots. clearly, these internal matters are for iranians themselves to address. we hope that they will be given an opportunity to do so in a peaceful way that respects the right of expression. it has been my position and that of our administration and that we support the fundamental values of people's voices being heard and their votes being counted. we will have to see how this unfolds. this is an historic moment for iran, for the iranian people. i do not want to speculate. >> will you recognize ahmadinejad as the elected

president? >> we are going to take this one day at a time. we will carefully assess what is happening. thank you very much. do not break your elbow. my last word of advice. but genomic -- every day gets a little bit better. thanks, all. >> it is tough to follow the headliner. i am happy to take questions. >> can we start with honduras? i know it is hard for the u.s. government to aggregate all of the money it gives to any given country. question one -- do you know the total amount of assistance to honduras? if you do not know, question two, can you lay out some of the items? i know that compaq is five

years, to under $50 million for one compact -- $250 million. >> the answer is we know how much there is. i am just checking to see if i have it here. i know that we asked the millennium challenge people and the usaid people to come up with those figures. as the secretary said, we are still analyzing what is happening. what happened yesterday. we know that there are some restrictions on assistance that the u.s. can give to the country. there has been these kinds of overturning of the constitutional order.

we're very cognizant of that. we will get back to you what the actual data, the amount of assistance. i do not think that will be a problem. >> you are not considering it a coup? legally? >> you heard the statement last night which called it a coup d'etats. you heard what the secretary said. having said that, we are cognizant of the particulars of u.s. law on this. let us get back to you on a legal definition issue. i do not want to make policy up here. >> have you begun the process of determining from a formal legal standpoint whether it is in

military coup? quite sure. >> when she was answering a question i asked that she said it is important to stand back and look at the big picture. she said there are concerns the u.s. has. obviously, actions by the president who has been deposed or kicked out of the country -- when she met with the saliva -- with zelaya, did she urged him not to go ahead with that referendum? >> she attended that meeting. i know there was broad discussion about that. we do not normally get into the details of our diplomatic exchanges. i think are consistent line throughout both through our embassy and then through our

oas channels is recognize there has been a political conflict there and that we believe very strongly -- as strongly as we can in the united states -- that these kinds of political conflicts have to be worked out through dialogue and have to be done in democratic and constitutional ways. we cannot support any extra constitutional approaches. >> if you analyze what has been going on, the u.s. has failed to make any impact whatsoever. we will not go so far as to say she said please do not go ahead with this, but they did talk about that. we had previously good relations between the honduran military and the u.s. and now they will not take calls. what else? i guess that would be two of them.

at least. obviously, they are not listening to anyone right now in the u.s. or even the rest of the world. how do you talk to them? doesn't that show some weakness on the part of the united states? at least trying to encourage democratic behavior? >> the would not say we have necessarily fail. this just happened yesterday. we are working primarily through the oas, organization of american states. there is a meeting tomorrow. i am sorry, next week. we could not have made stronger statements that these actions are deplorable. we used the word "condemn." the oas used this word. what we are looking to do is

make it clear to the various parties in honduras that this is absolutely outside the bounds of democratic principles and constitutional norms. it needs to be reversed. >> are they taking your calls? >> absolutely. we still have an ambassador down there. >> who is he talking to? >> i cannot tell you. he is talking to the congress. i am not going to talk about the details of his conversations. >> is the military taking calls? yesterday, as alluded to, and officials said they had stopped taking your calls. i think that is relevant. yesterday the military was not talking to you. >> i do not know the answer to

that question today. >> it is unclear what you are really looking for. you are not calling for the restoration. you are calling for the restoration of democratic order and the constitution but not for the president don't you say he is the legitimately elected president of the country. secretary clinton just said she does not know -- >> we signed up to that very strong statement that demanded statement thatzelaya -- that president zelaya be reinstated. >> i think that is the most important aspect of it. we are focused on that now. his return to power. >> most institutions and the government -- the congress, the military, the clergy -- no one

supported what he did. even senior administration officials say it was not a smart move and possibly illegal. how does he go back and be the president given he has no confidence by his country? >> what happened yesterday was, as i say, deplorable, but i think we have to keep focused on what is important here. that is we need to restore a democratic and political process in honduras. zelaya is the democratically elected president. >> but he was not acting within the norms you are talking about now. >> i am not going to address that. there was a political conflict within the country over the issue of a referendum. these kinds of conflicts need to

be worked out through peaceful and democratic dialogue. >> do you regard that -- if the situation is not resolved along those lines, let's say, if the status quo ripple -- the status quo prevails, that they will not recognize the next elections? >> the elections in november? you are asking me to speculate on something that may remain not happen. >> it never requires a great speculation to imagine the status quo will continue. >> this is 24 hours. >> whether he did send back into power or he does not, you have elections on november 29. will the u.s. regard those as legitimate elections? >> again, and i am not going to

speculate on elections that are in six months. >> tomorrow, will they call for countries to break relations with honduras? would the u.s. go along with that? >> i have not heard that. we have an ambassador there. he is very engaged in assessing the situation. i am not aware of any move to break off relations. >> [unintelligible] >> we have an ambassador on the ground at this very -- this very unstable time. we think it is important to have an authoritative voice there. i think it is important to have ambassador lawrence there. >> has your ambassador been in touch with the interim president? what has our message been to

him? >> i am not aware. i am not sure. we can find out that information. i know that he is very much -- >> what would your message be to him? >> the message is they need to have a legal, consensual solution to this situation. >> would you ask him to step down from his power? >> i can tell you what our overall messages, but i am not one to tell you specifics. i do not know. i am not there. >> you do not have to be on the ground to know what your government would like the interim president to do. >> we want the constitutional order to be restored in honduras. >> use a legal and consensual. it is not essential for anyone

to have him return to the presidency. when you say "consentual," it means everyone agrees. they kicked him out and expelled him. no one will consent. >> that may be. that may not be. i am not going to announce what the consensus is in honduras. what i do know is that zelaya is the democratically elected president. >> what about the resignation letter written in his name? >> i have seen reports on that given the way that he was hustled out of the country, i do not know if i would give a lot of credence. can we move to another subject? >> we are confused. the secretary said it evolves into a coup.

interesting phrase. there seems to be a lack of clarity. as the u.s. going to say this is permitted and this is not? it's almost like saying "a little bit pregnant." is it illegal? is it illegal according to the honduran constitution? >> i believe in it is, but i am not an international lawyer. i believe that it is illegal. i do not think that there was -- look. i will take this question, but i am not an international lawyer. this was not a democratic solution to some of the conflicts that we saw leading up to yesterday's events. i think that is our real issue with this. that is our issue with all of

the oas. >> is it fair to say this is a practical matter, a coup, but we are not yet making that formal legal determination which will trigger the cost of -- the cutoff of aid? >> i think right now we are calling all parties to come to an negotiate solutions. -- to come to negotiation of solutions. >> i do not know what the answer is -- how much time? is there a limit on how long the administration may take to determine whether a military coup has taken place? >> i do not believe there is. we will let you know. >> could you take the question about what context?

yesterday the officials were saying there was no contact with the government or the military. >> just the military. >> presumably we should have no hesitation in doing that? >> under normal circumstances, i would have no problem saying that. given that i have no legal training, i would prefer to have my colleagues and the office of the legal adviser respond to that. >> what time will they be available? >> and about five minutes. >> richard holbrooke on the weekend said that u.s. policies are changing. instead of revocation, -- of eradication, there would be a policy of stopping drugs.

they used the word "interdiction." this combined with support to farmers in afghanistan. i wonder if you have strategy for how this interdiction works, and if nato would be in cooperation with other countries in the area that are affected by the flow of drugs. is there a clear road map? >> first and foremost, this is an afghan operation. our efforts have been to support the afghan governments' efforts in the problem of narcotics. we remain committed to counter narcotics in afghanistan. what we're talking about, here, is we would like to increase our efforts to alternative crop development, public information,

and interdiction. eradication. it is up to the afghan government to determine how they go about their own counter narcotics efforts. we do support them, of course. >> they seem to indicate that they are happy with the policy and there was some discrepancy there. >> i have not seen any statements from the afghan governments. in the back? >> two questions about north korea. could you update the schedule? the second one is up "the new york times" reported yesterday that they are traveling to china and meeting people there. any comment on that? and what to think about the secession process?

>> i will answer your first question and then ask your second question, because i am not sure i understood and. as you know, he has been named coordinator for the implementation of the u.n. resolution, 1874. he plans to depart soon, including representatives of the national security council and defense. there for stock will be in beijing. of course, the purpose of this trip will be to consult with our partners in the region on the implementation of security council. the u.n. security council 1874. i do not have specific details on his itinerary. >> to you have an answer to the question that was raised last week about the palestinian- american boys?

>> namai. hold on a second. -- i might, hold on a second. we are aware, but due to privacy we have no comment at this time. we would like to emphasize that our liability in gaza is quite limited. all along we have urged american citizens to refrain from traveling to gaza. >> there's nothing you can do? >> i can -- i am not saying that. i cannot comment on the particular is. -- particulars. >> it has been said that there'll be some compromise tomorrow. reportedly with the passage of the freeze on new constructions. is acceptable or is that dead in

the water? does it go far enough? >> as you probably know, defense minister -- the defense minister is going to meet with special envoy it mitchell in new york tomorrow morning. we have been working with all parties to try to come up with an environment conducive to the resumption of negotiations. we look forward to sitting down and talking about what we can do to move this process forward, but let's see it -- i am not going to prejudge. >> in the past, the secretary and others have said they would accept no settlement. full stop. it does not seem like you are saying that now. >> what i am saying is