Iraq fails to meet key US political and security benchmarks in an upcoming report to Congress that seems certain to increase calls from lawmakers and the restive public to withdraw US troops, a US newspaper said Sunday.

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals and timelines set for it by President George W. Bush when he announced a major shift in US Iraq policy last January, the Washington Post daily reported.

"Top administration officials are aware that the strategy's stated goal -- using U.S. forces to create breathing space for Iraqi political reconciliation -- will not be met by September, said one person fresh from a White House meeting," Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks wrote for the Post. "But though some, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have indicated flexibility toward other options, including early troop redeployments, Bush has made no decisions on a possible new course."

The official told the paper, "The heart of darkness is the president. Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him."

The US Congress earlier this year passed a law containing 18 goals as part of a war-funding measure, setting a September deadline for a thorough assessment of the situation on the ground and calling for a July interim report, which is now just days away.

The president deployed additional troops to buy time for Iraqi political reconciliation, but the Post said that that the report, due sometime this month, concludes US combat deaths have escalated, violence has spread beyond Baghdad and sectarianism has further polarized Iraq.

"The security progress we're making in Iraq is real," a senior intelligence official in Baghdad told the daily, "but it's only in part of the country and there's not enough political progress to get us over the line in September."

Nevertheless, the newspaper reported that the top coalition commander, General David Petraeus, and US Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker will emphasize the positive when they provide their assessment to Congress in September, while offering new measures of progress to justify prolonging the US military mission in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the New York Times on Sunday called for US troops to leave Iraq, writing that Bush's plan to stabilize the country through military means is a lost cause.

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit," the influential daily wrote in an unusually long editorial that took up one-half of a page.

"It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost," the daily opined.

The administration does report some good news in the upcoming assessment however, noting that Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province are turning against Al-Qaeda; that sectarian killings were down in June; and that Iraqi political leaders last month agreed on a unified response to the bombing of a major religious shrine.

Still, officials told the Post that those achievements pale in comparison to the numerous setbacks in America's efforts to make Iraq stand on its own and provide for its own security.

Meanwhile, a growing tide of Republicans continued to break with the president on Iraq, as desperation about the course of events in the war torn country grows.

"Let's be honest here. We have a mess now. Who are we kidding?" US Senator Chuck Hagel told NBC television Sunday. "We have no good options in Iraq now."

The revelations about the report's findings come as Congress prepares to resume debate in Iraq, as it takes up funding this week.

Some stalwart Bush supporters in the US legislature said it might be possible to simply scale back expectations, rather than pulling out of Iraq altogether.

"We need to go back and reevaluate ... establishing Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq," said US Representative Pete Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, speaking on Fox News.

"We need to have this national debate about: do we believe that radical jihadists are a threat to US security in the long term? And I'm not sure that we've come to a consensus on that," Hoekstra said.