President Bush intensified the political storm surrounding two top administration officials yesterday when he said anyone who “committed a crime” in leaking the identity of a CIA operative would be dismissed – a statement that some viewed as a retreat from earlier promises to fire any administration official involved in the leak.

“We have a serious investigation going on here and it’s being played out in the press,” Mr. Bush said in response to a reporter’s question. “I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

The president’s comments, which came at a joint press appearance with Prime Minister Singh of India, triggered sharp criticism from Democrats, who accused Mr. Bush of backpedaling from his public vow last year. At that time, Mr. Bush gave no indication that a crime would have to be proved before any alleged leaker was discharged.

“I am disappointed that the president seems to have changed his standard. The standard for holding a high position in the White House should not simply be that you didn’t break the law. It should be a lot higher,” Senator Schumer said in a statement.

Much of the criticism continued to focus on Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove. A special prosecutor investigating the matter has shown particular interest in Mr. Rove’s apparent role in the leak of the identity of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Lawyers and journalists involved in the investigation have said Mr. Rove discussed Ms. Plame, though not by name, in connection with the White House’s efforts to rebut criticism of the administration that her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, had leveled in an op-ed piece.

Also caught up in the probe is the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, Lewis Libby. A Time magazine reporter has said that Mr. Libby also served as a source for a story that reported Ms. Plame’s link to the CIA.

At a news briefing yesterday afternoon, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, was peppered with questions about whether Mr. Bush was rolling back his ethical standards now that two senior aides are mired in the controversy.

“I think you that you should not read anything more into it than what the president said at this point, and I think that’s something you may be trying to do here,” the White House spokesman said. However, when pressed on whether the White House continues to stand by his earlier statements about firing any leaker, Mr. McClellan equivocated. “In terms of what was said previously, you can go back and look at everything in the context of what things were said at that point,” he said.

The press secretary’s vague and elliptical responses have prompted exasperation from some journalists. At yesterday’s briefing, a veteran White House reporter who is now a columnist for Hearst newspapers, Helen Thomas, said she could not fathom why Mr. Bush has not investigated the matter himself.

“What is his problem? Two years and he can’t call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he’s got to do is call him in,” Ms. Thomas said.

Repeating a mantra he has honed in recent days, Mr. McClellan said prosecutors have asked the White House to refrain from comment until the investigation is concluded. “The appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation,” the press secretary said. “We shouldn’t be getting into prejudging the outcome.”

An attorney who was part of the damage-control team for President Clinton, Lanny Davis, said in an interview that, thus far, Mr. Bush’s aides have employed a sensible crisis-management strategy in the CIA leak flap. However, Mr. Davis said that recent disclosures about top aides’s contacts with reporters during the early days of the story have exposed contradictions that the White House must address in the near future.

“I’m sympathetic that the White House focuses first, in the middle of a grand jury investigation, on whether somebody is violating the law or not, and is waiting to take the next step to make a judgment about ethical or political problems. That’s only fair,” Mr. Davis said.

“At some point, they have to do a pivot,” Mr. Davis said. “Karl Rove needs to say, ‘I apologize, no matter what my motives, intentional or unintentional, and it was never intentional, if I did anything to compromise Ms. Wilson, who served her country and the agency courageously.'”

Mr. Davis also said Mr. Bush’s political guru should apologize to Mr. McClellan for causing him to make a statement denying Mr. Rove’s involvement in the leak.

Mr. Davis said the intense attention being devoted to the story requires that the administration’s “pivot” come soon. “It may already be too late,” he said.

In other Democratic circles, less sympathy was shown toward Mr. Bush. Rep. Henry Waxman of California sent Mr. Bush a letter yesterday insisting that he immediately punish Mr. Rove.

Mr. Waxman argued that an executive order requires the president to act even as the criminal probe continues. “The president may not wait to act until criminal liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, the president has an affirmative obligation to take ‘appropriate and prompt corrective action,'” Mr. Waxman wrote.

A Republican lawyer with close ties to the White House said Democrats and reporters were overreacting to Mr. Bush’s statement about firing people who may have committed crimes. “I don’t think that can possibly be meant to mean that’s the only standard,” said the attorney, who asked not to be named.

Mr. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return calls seeking comment for this story.