In the wake of the headline-grabbing indictment of a top White House aide in the CIA leak investigation, President Bush plans to move quickly this week to do what so many of his predecessors have attempted under similar circumstances: Change the subject.

As soon as today, Mr. Bush intends to name a new nominee to the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, he is to announce a new initiative to improve America’s defenses against public health threats such as avian flu.

By diving back into the substance of governing so quickly after the embarrassment of last week’s indictment, Mr. Bush will be taking a page from the playbook of President Clinton, who often stressed as his impeachment rolled forward that he would not be diverted from “the people’s business.”

“We remain wholly focused on the many issues and opportunities facing this country,” Mr. Bush told reporters Friday afternoon before leaving for Camp David. “We got a job to protect the American people, and that’s what we’ll continue working hard to do.”

A former chief of staff to Mr. Clinton, Leon Panetta, said it will be difficult for Mr. Bush to pivot away from the leak imbroglio.

“You can’t just turn this on a dime with one p.r. event. This is going to be a long struggle,” Mr. Panetta told The New York Sun. He spoke just prior to the indictment Friday of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on five felony charges that he obstructed justice and lied to investigators probing the leak of the identity of a CIA staffer.

Mr. Panetta dismissed suggestions from White House officials that the leak inquiry has had no impact on the administration’s work. “Clearly, they’re in turmoil right now,” the former chief of staff and Democratic congressman said, citing the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers and Mr. Bush’s abrupt reversal last week on the issue of wage standards for post-hurricane reconstruction work. “There’s a struggle to try to get traction at a moment in time when you’re facing crisis on every front,” Mr. Panetta said.

Democrats are certain to resist any effort by Mr. Bush to put the leak controversy behind him. One focus of the political opposition will be the president’s top political aide, Karl Rove, who escaped indictment last week, but was alluded to in Mr. Libby’s indictment as a possible source for the leak.

In a television interview yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Reid called on the president to apologize for the leak affair and fire Mr. Rove.

“He’s still around. He should be let go,” Mr. Reid said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “If the president is a man of his word – and he said that anyone involved in this would be gone … then he should be gone,” said the senator, who also called on Mr. Cheney to explain his role in the case.

Court proceedings involving Mr. Libby, beginning with an arraignment in the coming days, are certain to keep the leak episode in the news. Mr. Libby, who resigned on Friday, has signaled that he intends to fight the charges, making a trial likely. It could come in the middle of next year, just as Republicans are gearing up for midterm elections.

“Now you’re facing the whole prospect of who’ll be testifying,” Mr. Panetta said. “People get very nervous about that.”

Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove could both be called as witnesses. As a suspect in the case, Mr. Rove would have to decide whether to assert the Fifth Amendment. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, is another possible witness. Reporters are still waiting for an explanation from Mr.McClellan about why he gave the press blanket assurances that neither Mr. Libby nor Mr. Rove were involved in the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

In response to a question from the Sun, the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, said at a news conference Friday that he had not considered yet whether he would lift his request that witnesses not discuss the investigation publicly.

Mr. McClellan said later that White House attorneys had advised all staffers not to make public statements about the case as the legal proceedings against Mr. Libby go forward.

At his news briefing Friday, Mr. Fitzgerald batted away most questions about whether the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity broke the law. He took pains to observe Justice Department rules against publicly implicating an individual in a crime that has not been charged in court. However, the Chicago-based prosecutor made clear that he viewed the leak as damaging, regardless of whether it was illegal.

At one juncture, Mr. Fitzgerald also appeared to endorse a form of “rough justice,” in which the charges brought against Mr. Libby could be used to punish him for his role in the leak, even if the leak itself could not be prosecuted.

“When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn’t really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest,” he said. “If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we’ve alleged, convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury. and false statements – very serious felonies – will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he’s held accountable. It’s not as if you say, ‘Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute.'”