WASHINGTON -- Members of the bipartisan commission examining the Sept. 11 attacks say they're not prepared to reach any conclusions yet on whether the Bush administration failed.

Final Report: 9/11 Public Discourse Project July 2004: 9/11 Commission Findings 9/11 Report: Joint Congressional Inquiry Members: 9/11 Panel Images: 9/11 Testimony Synopsis

Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said the investigation is proceeding in a bipartisan way despite Wednesday's focus on an explosive book written by Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in which Clarke asserts Bush ignored threats from al-Qaida while focusing on Iraq.

Gorelick said Clarke's allegations that the Bush administration has failed in the war on terrorism makes him a lightning rod for opposing views. But she told NBC's "Today" show his public testimony was consistent with what he's told the panel in private.

Fellow Commissioner John Lehman agrees. Lehman also said he believes the hearings showed that there is inevitably a "kind of vacuum" during a presidential transition -- when the old, experienced team clears out and the new team comes in.

Lehman said he's confident the commission's final report will pull no punches and come out with concrete recommendations for change.

But the panel, whose final conclusions are due out in July, did release preliminary assessments the past few days that were critical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

According to the preliminary reports, the Clinton administration let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions -- rather than military action -- to subdue al-Qaida operatives abroad

The panel also noted confusion between the Clinton administration and the CIA over authorization to assassinate Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by Clarke to take out al-Qaida targets, the panel found.

Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator, asked Clarke if there was "the remotest chance" that the attacks could have been prevented if the Bush administration had adopted his aggressive counterterrorism recommendations upon taking office in January 2001.

"No," Clarke said.

GOP Panel Member, Rice Target Clarke's Credibility

Clarke's criticism of the administration drew quick fire from the White House earlier this week and again Wednesday, but more notably brought criticism from Republican commission members, who said the pointed criticism of Bush officials in his book contradicted his praise for the administration's policies as late as fall 2002.

"I hope you resolve that credibility problem, because I would hate to see you shoved aside in the presidential campaign as an active partisan trying to shove out a book," said John Lehman, a Republican commissioner and a former Navy secretary.

Clarke (pictured, left) responded that he had no political motivations.

"I would not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one," he said.

The White House has been quick to respond to Clarke's allegations, asserting that had there been any "actionable intelligence" about a threat on Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. government would have acted.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, the target of much of Clarke's criticism, held an impromptu news conference Wednesday, calling Clarke's allegations "scurrilous" and "arrogant." Rice identified Clarke as the senior official who had praised the president's anti-terrorism efforts in an anonymous briefing for reporters the year following the attacks.

"He needs to get his story straight," Rice said.

Questioned by 9/11 commissioners about positive comments he made about Bush's antiterrorism efforts after the attacks, Clarke said he was often asked to "emphasize the positives" and de-emphasize the "negatives." He said he did so in the Clinton administration as well.

Clarke told the panel on Wednesday that the Clinton administration had "no other higher priority" than terrorism, while the Bush team saw terrorism as "important," not "urgent."

9/11 Widow Disappointed With Hearings

A woman who lost her husband on Sept. 11, 2001, says she's disappointed in the hearings.

Kristen Breitweiser told NBC's "Today" show she thinks the public hearings Tuesday and Wednesday turned into a political debate over Clarke. She said it should have been an examination of the underlying facts about whether Bush did enough to protect the nation from terrorism.

Breitweiser said she also appreciates Clarke's apology to the families. She said that's a first for them. She said it means a lot when people have the ability to say, "I failed you, but we're going to make sure it doesn't happen again."

A man who lost his son in the attacks said he's still struggling to come to terms with the death, but he also said the hearings made him feel better. He called it a "good moment" as he seeks to find out the truth of what happened.