Well, I reread the article after reading of the bias you talk about, but the only thing that the article says is that Ariel Sharon, specifically, has Bush "wrapped around his finger." It really is clear that Scowcroft is saying that Bush is personally very impressed (Scowcroft believes obviously too impressed) with the individual human Ariel Sharon, and that for whatever reason, is subordinate to Sharon.
Again, people seem very willing to replace the word "Sharon" with the word "the Jews." And it's a small step from "The Jews" to "The Jewish Conspiracy", etc. There's only one problem, Scowcroft was speaking about Bush's relationship with Sharon, and as far as I can see, didn't comment at all about worldwide Jewry.
It's like saying "Bill Clinton is a monster." That, of course, does not mean "Americans are monsters." It means what it says, that Bill Clinton is. One could easily see, however, supporters of Clinton twisting the phrase and saying "Hey, don't speak about Americans like that, you America-hater."
What it does is betray the motives of the defender. Rather than respond to the issue raised (Bush's willingness to overlook Sharon's breaks with the wishes of the administration) and turn it into one of worldwide persecution of an entire race of people, well, it feels like I'm listening to a campaign manager after a debate....
It is quite disingenuous to say the least, and in my opinion is in fact more racist than anything Scowcroft actually said (as, again, he was speaking about a specific person, not a race of people).
Surely, if Scowcroft were anti-semetic, you aren't suggesting that he would make openly anti-semetic comments? Of course, I only stated that his statements sounded anti-semetic.
As you say, there are those who jump too quickly to the conclusion that someone is being anti-semetic. But then again, there are those who refuse to believe someone is being anti-semetic. There are even those who deny the Holocaust happened. Not that I would place you in such a category. But, there is a large continuum in between. It is important to consider various explanations for Scowcroft's comments.