It's alright. I wasn't offended or anything. 
I think that a lot of it is a "between the lines" view of your characters wants and how Anders's actions effect that. I did the friendmance path and I don't remember any lines about him not trusting me. He talks about not telling you to protect you at the end. He makes it sound like he chose to go ahead without you so that you wouldn't be held accountable for the incident, since he seems to expect execution for himself.
My character agreed with the morality behind blowing up the chantry (and I don't really want to get into debating the possible true morality of it so much) on the basis that the Chantry was standing in the way of mage freedom by keeping the situation from changing. Because the Chantry had power in the situation, my character saw it as a fair target. A decade had passed since you met Anders and he'd been living with you for years at this point, so I assume he would know if you would support the decision he made. If you supported it, then the "manipulation and lies" outlook makes no sense. There'd be no reason to manipulate or lie to a person that constantly supported your choices. If you're someone that always acted in support of the mages and always vocalized agreement with Anders, then his claim that he wanted to protect you makes more sense than the idea that he was lying and manipulating you.
So, when you strip out the need for lying and manipulating and the disagreement with what he did, you're just left with the fact that he decided to put your safety above his own without giving you a choice in the matter. In a lot of cases, this is actually a selfish act, but it's something that I can live with and hope to balance in time. I guess another viewpoint for the even less morally driven is that he stole your glory by taking credit for the big event, but that's not something that bothers me, personally.
I have to disagree with you on the distinction you draw in terms of agreeing with the morality of Anders' actions. If you don't agree with him (e.g. if you agree with freedom for mages, but not nuking the Chantry), then what Anders does is absolutely monstrous, tricking you into enabling him to murder what you see as innocents. There aren't words to describe that, IMO. But I wasn't thinking about this in terms of disagreeing with his choices: I was thinking about it from the POV of someone who would agree with Anders, to be as charitable as possible.
Even if you agree with Anders, what he does is horrible and manipulative. He tells Hawke, the man who he ostensibly loves, that he's found a cure to the presence that has been torturing him for years. You've seen Anders - even on the friendship path - suffer from his merger with Justice, and he presents to you a plan to be free. He asks you to trust him if you voice suspicion, playing off your love and connection. In the end, he lies to you. He manipulates you, based on your feelings. All of this, to me, is something that kills a relationship dead.
The protection argument is absurd. Who exactly is he protecting you from? The templars? If you're pro-mage, they have absolutely no reason to believe you're innocent. The truth is you helped Anders gather the ingredients and you personally distracted the Grand Cleric for him to execute his plot. Protesting that you didn't know about is futile. Who else is there to protect you from?
What Anders did was steal your choice away from you, by playing off your feelings. It's really hard, IMO, to find anything more a fundamental betrayal of a relationship than what we did.
The fact that you can't really address this in-game, IMO, is a failing. Certainly if future romances follow the sort of betrayal that Anders inflicted, the game has to be able to allow the player to respond better to what happened.