I'm only intent on clarifying that he was criticizing Bush's relationship with Sharon, saying nothing about any other Jew individually or as a people.
It seems apparent to me that his criticism is fueled by concern of this relationship alone, to even merely suggest that one need consider anti-Semitism is nearly as potent as outright claiming it.
If Scowcroft's only interest, as you posit, is an attempt to get favorable press coverage, do you really believe that he concluded the best way to do so would be to make a comment that guarentees him being called anti-Semitic? Wouldn't pointing out shortcomings of the "liberation," etc. suffice?
People love to try to spin criticism of Sharon as anti-Semitism, either by outright accusations or suggestions that it be "considered."
More important is the consideration that he sees something that is potentially damaging to the United States of America, something we are all theoretically concerned about...
A relevant post for your amusement: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1249291/posts
Scowcroft has a great friend in you. I'm amazed that you have so little cynicism for comments of this nature being made in an election year.