I'll take a couple of examples of where Chomsky and the left wing position (that I've read) is strange. (Any reader might want to skip to "And so on.")
The condemnations of US foreign policy is weird. Consider that countries (including democracies) implement realpolitik. And all (I know of) lie about it.
It is ridiculous to condemn a group (US) for playing a game where their lives are at stake and acting like the other players. Instead, note that the game is bad -- and how it could be changed (implement more democracies).
For a second example, I'll take Israel. I'll compare it to Bangladesh.
Even with an extreme description of Israel in 1948, the treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh has been much worse for much longer (the Hindus are also citizens, not in the middle of a civil war without an existing country. Etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_Property_Act_%28Banglade...
No one cares! (Well, the Hindus driven away care. And the ones lynching them.)
Israel can be condemned on some issues (which is natural, the country is under an existential threat). But to demonize only one side in a conflict when the other side arguably is factors of ten worse?! (Even with antisemitism in their state controlled/censured media!)
And so on.
On the other hand, Chomsky is for me like vim. People whose intellect I respect use vim instead of Emacs. Hence, there should be something in Chomsky.
What speaks against that argument is that even the intelligent followers tend to be idealists and believers regarding their political opinions. (-: Like, well, me and Emacs. :-)
Edit: I should note that I have to run some errands now and probably won't read answers until this evening.