The Obama administration's work in fighting for human rights across the globe has been largely behind the scenes, a strategy that has elicited criticism from those who believe public admonishment is the best way to shame brutal regimes into better treatment of their citizens.

When it comes to Iran, the administration's calculation is more complicated. Their ongoing pursuit of engagement with the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which coexists alongside a policy of increasing sanctions, requires a delicate balancing act. The State Department has been very vocal in its call for the release of the American hikers that have been detained in Iran since July 2009, but more reticent in supporting indigenous groups facing persecution by Iran's government, such as the pro-democracy Green Movement.

But there are signs that may be changing and that the State Department is poised to become more vocal in its public criticisms of Iranian human rights offenses.

Members of the Baha'i faith, one long-persecuted group in Iran, were greatly reassured Thursday when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement criticizing the Iranian government's persecution of the group. Seven Baha'i leaders were each sentenced to 20 years in prison this week.

"The United States strongly condemns this sentencing as a violation of Iran's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Clinton said. "Freedom of religion is the birthright of people of all faiths and beliefs in all places. The United States is committed to defending religious freedom around the world, and we have not forgotten the Baha'i community in Iran."

Persecution of the estimated 300,000 Baha'is in Iran has existed since the religion's inception in the 19^th century, but increased dramatically following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the eradication of the Baha'i faith became official government policy. Since the revolution, over 200 Baha'is have been killed by the regime, while hundreds have been imprisoned and thousands have been denied access to basic human rights, including the right to education and to work.

Shastri Purushotma, Human Rights Representative for the U.S. Baha'i community, told The Cable that they greatly appreciated Clinton's statement, whichmarked the first time she had spoken out on behalf of the Baha'is.

"The Obama administration and the State Department have spoken up at every major stage of their trial," he said. "It would be wonderful if President Obama could speak out about this too, in the right opportunity and right setting."

Clinton's statement on the Baha'i prosecutions came just two days after she sharply criticized Iran for its treatment of several other citizens who had been denied due process or basic freedoms.

She mentioned the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who was sentenced to death by stoning for alleged adultery, the case of Ebrahim Hamidi, who is being executed for sodomy, and the cases of Jafar Kazemi, Mohammad Haj Aghaei, and Javad Lari, three protesters arrested after the flawed June 2009 elections.

"The United States is deeply concerned that Iran continues to deny its citizens their civil rights and intimidate and detain those Iranians who seek to hold their government accountable and stand up for the rights of their fellow citizens," Clinton said.

For the Bahai, public awareness of their plight is crucial.

"If  someone is trying to commit a crime, if they can do it in the dark, they have a better chance of getting away with it," said Purushotma. "All of these things are intertwined, you can't separate out human rights and the nuclear issue, because the way a country treats his own people is an indication of how they will treat their neighbors."

Jared Mondschein contributed to this article.

President Obama's special envoy to Sudan, retired Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, could be on his way to a new job in Kenya as the White House prepares a new approach to Sudan ahead of a January referendum that analysts fear could split the country into two separate nations -- or even spark a new civil war.

The news comes in the wake of a contentious principals-level meeting at the White House last week, in which Gration clashed openly with U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice over the direction of Sudan policy.

At the meeting, Rice was said to be "furious" when Gration proposed a plan that makes the January referendum a priority, deemphasizes the ongoing crisis in Darfur, and is devoid of any additional pressures on the government in Khartoum.

According to multiple sources briefed on the meeting, Gration's plan was endorsed by almost all the other participants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and will now go the president for his approval. Rice was invited to provide a written dissent. Vice President Joseph Biden did not attend.

It wouldn't be the first battle Gration has won over how to deal with the brutal regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, an indicted war criminal who has driven his nation to ruin since coming to power in a 1989 military coup. Gration advocates closer and more cooperative interactions with the ruling National Congress Party, which he sees as the best way to influence its behavior, along with a de-emphasis on public criticism of the regime's deadly tactics.

The tension between Gration and Rice goes back to the early days of the administration. In June 2009, ABC News reported that Rice, who has long advocated a tougher line on Khartoum, was "furious" when Gration said that Darfur was experiencing only the "remnants of genocide." The State Department quickly confirmed that its official position is that genocide is ongoing.

Now, Gration's penchant for gaffes and his poor relations with communities of interest may have finally taken its toll, observers say.

"The fact that he's being rotated out of this position suggests that he may have won a number of battles but lost the war. If people were overwhelmingly happy with his performance, it seems odd you would move him out to be ambassador of a neighboring country," said John Norris, executive director of the Enough Project, a leading Sudan anti-genocide advocacy organization.

Gration, who has been the administration's point man on Sudan for more than a year, is currently considering taking the job of U.S. ambassador in Nairobi, according to multiple sources both inside and outside the administration. Discussions are ongoing and no formal offer has been made, but as of one week ago Gration was said to be lobbying hard to keep his Sudan portfolio if he moves to Kenya.

Gration has wanted to be envoy to Kenya for some time, according to multiple administration sources. If he is successful in keeping his role in Sudan policy, he would be hugely influential on three major Africa policy issues: Sudan, Kenya, and Somalia, which is largely managed from the embassy in Nairobi.

The more likely scenario is that if and when Gration is sent to Kenya -- assuming he passes a Senate confirmation process that will likely be contentious -- he would have to relinquish the Sudan portfolio.

"The special envoy job is a full-time job, as is being ambassador to Kenya during this crucial time," Norris said. "I can't imagine they would place one person in charge of both."

One administration source said that the plan had been to nominate Gration during the congressional recess, as to avoid a lengthy confirmation debate, but that plan was no longer operative and Gration would be nominated and confirmed through the usual process. Gration's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Leading figures in the Sudan advocacy community have long been critical of Gration, whom they see as too cozy with the Khartoum government and wholly uninterested in applying additional pressures on Sudan's government in response to rising violence.

When the administration rolled out its new Sudan policy last October, Secretary Clinton promised that both carrots and sticks would be used to influence Bashir's behavior. "Assessment of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives will be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners," she said.

But though Sudan is under a variety of unilateral and multilateral sanctions, the administration never publicly identified what additional pressures it was bringing to bear. That, combined with Gration's statements about the need to engage Khartoum positively, have led most observers to conclude that no additional pressures were ever applied.

"During the last year and a half, we've seen increased violence in Darfur and the deadliest months in five years, we saw an election that was completely compromised without any resulting sanctions, we've seen a deepening of the rifts that could cause a resumption of war between the north and the south. None of these have elicited from the Obama administration anything more than an occasional statement," said John Prendergast, CEO of the Enough Project. "This has given a clear green light to the regime in Khartoum to pursue its warmongering as usual. Gration has overseen this policy."

Administration officials played down the conflict between Rice and Gration, saying that such meetings are supposed to be deliberative. "This is a policy debate. People often disagree. If they didn't, what's the point of having the meeting?" one White House official said.

Regardless, for Sudan watchers, the hope is that the president will finally weigh in and make his views known, to settle the internal debate.

"There's always going to be divisions inside an administration," said Prendergast. "This is the first time you have a clear choice placed directly in the hands of the president. It's time for him to step up."

Meanwhile, the world is bracing for an eruption in Southern Sudan. Khartoum has been caught fomenting violence between southern groups, agreements on borders and revenue sharing are nonexistent, and the conduct of the last election gives nobody confidence the referendum is on track.

Analysts worry that the international community and the U.S. in particular are missing their last opportunity to prevent Bashir's government from undermining the credibility of the referendum to a degree where armed conflict would break out.

"Good diplomacy backed by serious pressure can potentially prevent this from happening, but that's what's so disappointing; we have poor diplomacy with almost no pressures whatsoever," said Prendergast. "It's a worst-case scenario."

The nomination of Frank Ricciardone to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey is being held up in the Senate and the GOP has no intention of allowing a vote on the nomination any time soon.

A spokesperson for Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS, confirmed to The Cable that his office has placed a hold on the nomination, which was reported out favorably by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month. Brownback is preparing a letter now to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining the reasons for his objections.

Brownback's office declined to specify the contents of the letter, but multiple GOP senate aides from other offices said that there was widespread support throughout the caucus for Brownback's position and that there was nothing specific the administration could do to convince Ricciardone's detractors to allow his nomination to proceed. If Brownback did release his hold, it's likely another one would surface soon after.

"He's just the wrong guy for this sensitive post at this time and the hope is that the administration will recognize that he won't be confirmed this year and nominate someone better," said one senior GOP aide close to the issue.

Of course, the president could appoint Ricciardone this month during the congressional recess and avoid a Senate confirmation vote, but then Ricciardone would be ambassador only until the new Congress is seated in January, at which point a potentially larger GOP Senate caucus would likely raise the same objections.

The controversy over the nomination is mired in the history of U.S. relations with several of the countries in which Ricciardone has served, including Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan.

To his supporters, Ricciardone is a distinguished 34-year veteran of the Foreign Service who has taken on tough assignments in dangerous places on behalf of both Democratic and Republican administrations. To his critics, Ricciardone's record shows a pattern of being too close to the governments he is interacting with and too tepid on the mission to push values such as democracy and human rights with tyrannical regimes.

The tenuous nature of the U.S.-Turkey relationship right now due to Turkey's vote against new sanctions for Iran at the U.N. and Turkey's bold anti-Israel stance in the wake of the Gaza flotilla incident have put a spotlight on the nomination.

The administration might be wary of spending its limited political capital to push through the Ricciardone nomination to a floor debate in the Senate because it could open up a broader public discussion of Turkey policy the White House might not think is useful given the delicate diplomatic environment.

There are signs that the administration is working hard now behind the scenes to reevaluate its approach to Turkey. For example, the State Department is hosting a high-level meeting today on Turkey policy, led by Clinton and Policy Planning chief Anne Marie Slaughter and with the participation of Assistant Secretary Phil Gordon.

"The ultimate aim of [the meeting] is to assess in a free, think-tanky sort of way, are we moving in the right direction, are there other areas we can address?" a State Department official said, explaining that this one of multiple meeting being held to come up with "out-of-the-box thinking to try to assess where we need to go."

One GOP Senate aide lamented that the administration seemed tone deaf to Republican objections to Ricciardone.

"They're trying to get together to figure out their Turkey policy and this nomination shows they don't have one."

In which we scour the transcript of the State Department's daily presser so you don't have to. These are the highlights of Wednesday's briefing by spokesman P.J. Crowley:

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Wednesday with Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and they discussed the dialogue between Colombian President Juan Manual Santos and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "The United States appreciates the constructive, positive role that Argentina is playing in encouraging a peaceful resolution of the issues between Colombia and Venezuela," Clinton said.
• Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela met with Colombian Ambassador Carolina Barco and Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez. State is not backing off their effort to place Larry Palmer as the next U.S. envoy in Caracas, despite that Chavez is refusing to accept him. "He remains our nominee. And we are hopeful that he will be confirmed by the Senate, and will be someone who can be an effective interlocutor between the United States and Venezuela," Crowley said,
• Clinton spoke Wednesday with Special Envoy George Mitchell, who was Israel to try to get Benjamin Netanyahu to agree to direct talks with the Palestinians. The State Department believes progress is being made but there are still details to work out, despite that Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the talks were deadlocked. Clinton also spoke Wednesday with Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh of Jordan. "I'm sure there will be ongoing consultations within the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government over the next few days," Crowley said.
• Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman is on his way to Paris to consult with the French about the Middle East, after which he will go to Iraq to talk to leaders there. Crowley rejected the notion that Feltman is going there to "crack skulls," saying, "Ultimately we can be helpful, but we can't make these decisions for Iraqi leaders." Congress gave State $600 million less than requested in supplemental funds. "We will be able to perform our mission in Iraq, but obviously resources matter in terms of the breadth of those programs,' Crowley said.
• The revelation that Russia is deploying S-300 air defense missiles to the Georgian territory of Abkhasia is not news, said Crowley. "There have been systems in Abkhazia for two years. We can't confirm whether they have added to those systems or not. So we will look into that. But just this by itself is not necessarily a new development. That system has been in place for some time," he said. Russia also announced that its company Lukoil will be resuming refined petroleum shipments to Iran.
• The remains of four U.S. aid workers killed in Afghanistan arrived at Dover Air Force Base Wendesday, brought home on military aircraft. The other two killed will be laid to rest in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration has made it clear to the Lebanese government that it should do everything in its power to avoid another border skirmish with Israel and be careful about cozying up to Iran if they value their defense relationship with the United States.

Iran has offered to become the primary supporter of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) after two leading U.S. lawmakers put a hold on U.S. military assistance to the LAF last week. The holds were placed around the same time as a border skirmish between Israel and Lebanon that resulted in four deaths. The attack on Israeli soldiers who were pruning a tree began with shots fired from the Lebanese side, possibly with an American made sniper rifle.The lawmakers, House Foreign Affairs chairman Howard Berman, D-CA, and House Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-NY, are working with the administration now and the expectation is that the holds will be soon lifted.

But in the meantime, the administration delivered a message to the Lebanese government via Frederic Hof, senior advisor to Special Envoy George Mitchell, who was in Beirut on a previously scheduled visit. Hof arrived there last week and left August 9. He met with senior civilian and military leaders to discuss the border incident and to update them on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a senior U.S. official told The Cable.

"He noted that the incident could and should have been avoided and placed stress on the important U.S.-Lebanon bilateral defense relationship," the official said.

Hof also warned that some in Congress were trying to curtail or even eliminate U.S. military assistance to the LAF and the administration's efforts to keep the assistance going were dependent on there being no further incidents.

"Hof told his interlocutors that if something like this were to happen again, he's not sure we could prevent [the elimination of the aid] from happening," the official said.

Perhaps most importantly, Hof communicated to senior Lebanese officials that their actions going forward, such as taking assistance from Iran, for example, would have consequences for U.S.-Lebanon military cooperation.

"He reaffirmed that the Administration considers the relationship very important and the role of the LAF as a national institution defending the country's sovereignty to be vital. But he also explained that our ability to justify and strengthen this important defense relationship will be affected by what Lebanon does in the wake of this incident," the official said.

Reports from the region said that Hof met with Lebanese Army commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji, who also met with Iranian ambassador to Lebanon Ghazanfar Abadi on Monday.

It's not clear that the Lebanese government or the LAF got the message. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr shot back at Congress defiantly on August 11.

"That person who said in Congress, 'I will stop aid to the army,' he is free to do so.... Anyone who wants to help the army without restrictions or conditions, is welcome," Murr said. "This person wants to make military aid conditional on not protecting [Lebanon's] land, people, and borders against Israeli aggression. Let them keep their money or give it to Israel. We will confront [Israel] with the capabilities we own."

Murr also reportedly said the army fired at Israel based on "an order from the army chief."

Back in Washington, the State Department is working with Berman and Lowey to reassure them that U.S. military aid is not going to Hizbollah and is not being used against U.S. allies. A State Department official said on background that he expects the holds to be lifted soon.

"We are committed to our relationship with Lebanon," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Wednesday. "It serves our interests; it serves Lebanon's interests; it serves the region's interests. We continue to believe that investing in Lebanon's government and investing in Lebanon's military serves as a stabilizing influence and expands and strengthens Lebanon's sovereignty."

The actual money, $100 million worth of Humvees, small arms, and maintenance support, was already appropriated by Congress as part of the fiscal 2010 appropriations bill. But as of July 29, the money was still unspent. That's the day State sent over what's known as a "spend plan" for the money, which is what triggered the holds from Berman and Lowey.

Berman actually placed his hold before the border clash. Lowey placed her hold in reaction to the incident.

"Before disbursing this assistance, we must understand the exact circumstances of the incident and how our assistance can most effectively enhance our security and that of our allies," Lowey told The Cable Wednesday. "I am working closely with the Administration to answer these questions."

Two more lawmakers have also waded into the debate. House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, D-MO, wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ask for briefings on U.S. military assistance to the LAF.

"I have supported both this and the last Administration's efforts to build the capacity of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to conduct counterterrorism operations. However, this recent exchange of fire between Israeli and Lebanese armed forces along that border has me concerned that our policy with Lebanon may be counter-productive," Skelton wrote.

And House Minority Leader Eric Cantor, R-VA, called for fiscal 2011 funding to be blocked until the questions regarding the incident and the LAF's relationship to Hizbollah are resolved.

"The LAF's unprovoked attack on the Israeli defense forces in undisputed Israeli territory demands a sweeping reassessment of how we distribute our foreign aid," Cantor said in a statement.

Cantor apparently didn't realize that fiscal 2011 funding has not been considered by Congress and won't come up for several months.

It's extremely unusual for the State Department to change a travel warning to American citizens based on a complaint from the destination country, but that's exactly what happened this week after the Israeli government protested, State Department officials admitted Wednesday.

On August 5, State issued a travel warning to all American citizens in a response to rocket attacks that hit both Israel and Jordan. The warning included the line, "rockets have been fired recently into the Eilat and Aqaba areas. U.S. citizens in Eilat and southern Israel are advised to ascertain the location of the nearest bomb shelter." No similar warning was issued for Jordan.

The Israeli tourism ministry protested privately and publicly, saying, "This advisory gives a prize to terror and undermines regional stability and the sense of security that Israel gives to everyone who enters the country.... Differentiating Israel from its neighbor that actually suffered loss of life is improper and lacks balance."

On August 10, State issued the new travel warning, which replaces the August 5 notice and doesn't mention Eilat at all, only saying, "U.S. citizens in the area should be aware of the risks and should follow the advice of the Government of Israel's office of Homefront Command."

After spokesman P.J. Crowley defended the change Tuesday, one sarcastic State Department reporter asked Crowley on Wednesday, "Can any country complain about the travel advice that you give and have it changed? Or is that just a privilege that's accorded to Israel?"

Crowley responded that the change was made in part because there was a disparity between the Israeli travel warning and the lack of a similar warning for Jordan. He also argued that disseminating the information through what's called a "warden message," which only goes out to U.S. government personnel, was sufficient.

"We decided, upon further review ... that the warden message was the appropriate way, because we were talking about one specific incident, to communicate this threat information. And that's why we withdrew the language from the Israeli travel warning," he said.

The State Department press corps was not satisfied. They pressed Crowley on whether their assessment had changed, and if not, why they chose not to inform American citizens of the ongoing risk? Here's the exchange:

Q: But I was under the impression that the -- that the responsibility of the State Department was for the safety and security of American people and to let them know when there are -- when there are threats.

MR. CROWLEY: True. All true.

Q: And now you -- now you've -- now you've removed the -- the word "Eilat" does not even appear in the new travel warning.

MR. CROWLEY: That's true.

Q: And it's still dangerous for Americans to go there, you believe.

MR. CROWLEY: That's true.

Q: So why would you take it out?

MR. CROWLEY: We took it out because we felt that a warden message was the more appropriate way to communicate a particular risk factor for Eilat.

"I'm not denying it's unusual to change a travel warning two times in two weeks," said a State Department official, speaking on background. The official said State took the blame for the error.

"We listened to what Israel had to tell us but it was a process failure here at the Department," the official said.

The rocket attacks were an isolated incident, not a trend, so the State Department now believes a travel to Eilat is OK, Crowley said. "I think Americans should feel free to travel to Israel and should take appropriate precautions knowing that there are still risks involved in visiting that country."

The Washington Times owes the State Department more than $15,000 in long-overdue travel expenses, The Cable has learned.

The overdue bills are related to travel by Nicholas Kralev, the struggling paper's recently departed State Department correspondent, who traveled with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Israel, Japan, Korea, Egypt, Belgium, Turkey, China and Afghanistan on four separate trips dating from May 2008 to November 2009. The total outstanding debt is $15,927.32, according to State Department records obtained by The Cable.

Reached by The Cable, Kralev said he had submitted each bill up the chain of command in a timely fashion but had no luck in getting Times management to pay them. The State Department has been emailing and calling Kralev and the Times management demanding the bills be paid as recently as last week.

The Times management itself turned over in November 2009, when executive editor John Solomon was replaced with current editor, former U.S. News and World Report contributor Sam Dealey. Kralev said that after the switchover, all expenses-related questions were being handled by Dealey's chief assistant, Christine Reed, and that Reed was copied on several of the invoices from State. Reed told Kralev that the Times was having cash-flow problems and that the company simply couldn't pay the bills, he said.

"I'm guessing the new management doesn't have the money to pay the bills or doesn't want to pay the bills. State has every right to request those bills be paid," said Kralev.

A State Department official told The Cable that State sees a huge irony to the unpaid bills, given that the Times has been publishing a series of articles criticizing Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew for his actions regarding disclosure of a $1 million bonus he received from his former employer Citigroup shortly before joining the administration.

One article was devoted to a typographical error Lew made on an ethics form regarding his departure date from Citigroup.

"Maybe before getting sanctimonious about the finances of a public servant of the very highest caliber, they should pay their own substantial debt to the American taxpayer," a State Department official said of the Times.

Dealey, reached by The Cable, declined to comment on why the bills have not been paid but he denied that there was a direct connection to the paper's negative coverage of Lew.

"I'm the editor, not the accountant, and our story on Jack Lew's million-dollar taxpayer-funded bonus from Citibank speaks for itself," he said.

The financial problems at the Times have been well reported. Following the firing of top executives last November, the paper let go about 40 percent of the editorial staff over the succeeding two months.

When publisher Jonathan Slevin left in April, he sent out a blistering letter criticizing Dealey for leaking information to the press and accusing Nicholas Chiaia, one of two board members, of large-scale mismanagement related to the Times and its financial operations specifically.

The Unification Church, a well-heeled religious movement led by self-proclaimed Messiah Rev. Sun Myung Moon, which owns the Times, has slashed the financial subsidies that had been keeping the paper afloat and in May, Chiaia admitted that the paper is up for sale.

Reed and Solomon both declined to comment and attempts to reach the Times accounting staff were unsuccessful.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is confident the Senate will President Obama's strategic nuclear treaty with Russia shortly after the August congressional recess, she said Wednesday morning.

Following a meeting with Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, she said the administration had reassured skeptical senators about their concerns over what the treaty means for missile defense, investment in "nuclear modernization," and verification.

"This treaty in no way will constrain our ability to modernize our nuclear enterprise or develop and deploy the most effective missile defenses for the sake of our security and for our allies and friends," she said.

She also touted the administration's $80 billion proposal for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, a huge increase in such funding but short of what some GOP senators are calling for.

Clinton took a page from the book of committee ranking Republican Richard Lugar, R-IN, who said last week that the quick ratification of the treaty, known as New START, is a national-security imperative because all monitoring of Russian nuclear activities stopped when the last treaty expired last December.

"There is an urgency to ratify this treaty because we currently lack verification measures with Russia, which only hurts our national security interests," she said. "Our ability to know and understand changes in Russia's nuclear arsenal will erode without the treaty. As time passes, uncertainty will only increase. Ratifying the New START treaty will prevent that outcome."

Although Clinton said all of the senators' questions were being answered, one sticking point is likely to remain even after the recess ends. Several GOP senators are demanding the administration give them the entire negotiating record for New START. The administration has provided a summary, but has indicated several times that it has no intention of handing over the full record.

The administration argues that even though negotiating records have been provided in the past in certain cases, doing so hurts their ability to hold private negotiations with foreign governments in the future.

"It is surprising to see so many former senators in an administration who believe the Senate is a rubber stamp," one senior GOP aide told The Cable. "Until the administration sends up the negotiating record, it is clear that we have not yet reached the end of the beginning of this process."

Kerry has promised a committee vote on the treaty will be held Sept. 15 or 16.

Clinton's full remarks after the jump:

Read on