Although anyone with a lick of sense has assumed that that report to be made in September would be heavily influenced by the Bush administration, it's confirmed in this article in today's LA Times, titled "Top general may propose pullbacks." The article is full of interesting tidbits about what General Petraeus might or might not recommend in September, the telling portion is located on the second page, here:
Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.
So, the report won't show any significant political progress (even though the stated purpose of Bush's escalation was to "create the conditions" in which political progress could be made), but it will be written by the Bush administration, who will then proceed to interpret the report's data and make determinations regarding further action based on that interpretation. Anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?