Cole's Motives

A reader writes:

I find it difficult to fathom how you could find it difficult to fathom why Cole would be "acting as a witting dissembler about the views of Ahmadinejad." Cole could not possibly be more perfectly representative of the very disease on the left the Euston Manifesto is designed to counteract. He dresses it up in academic language, but strip that away, and time and again you are left with the same tired bromides and the same tired conclusion: everything, everywhere, at all times, is the fault of Bush and co., and the fault of Israel. He is simply incapable of reaching any other conclusion and I defy you or anyone to prove me wrong about that. He is the very antithesis of a true intellectual: he starts from a conclusion (it's Bush & Co./Israel's fault!) and then ties all inconvenient and unignorable facts up into pretzels to make them fit. How is this not an accurate description of exactly what's he's just done in the present case?