In the comments section of a previous post I expressed skepticism of this based on how the news was "broke." A single line from a Los Angeles Times story about other aspects of the report states:
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.
Aaand the world came to an end.
For those interested in the truth of the matter, actual in-depth analysis of this showstopper can be found here:
The author outlines Public Law 110-28, "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007" (isn't that a mouthful) which lays clear the responsibility and format that the September reports are to be delivered:
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.(again thanks to Q and O for the quote.)
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
So the correct passage from the Times article should have read:
By law passed by the a majority Democrat congress in 2007, the President will prepare the report including evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense.
Both Crocker and Petraeus will also be required by the same law to appear in both public and closed hearings before congress.
I assume that the reporter knew this but chose to omit these details on purpose, which is why the lack of follow through on the snippet either in this story or in a subsequent article.
And I don't blame x4mr, as he was not dealt with fairly by the original source.