I continue to respect some of Chomsky's writing on topics such as the devastation of East Timor by Indonesia. But the more one knows about a subject, the more apparent the selectivity of Chomsky's analysis becomes. When Chomsky argued that the 9/11 atrocities were morally equivalent to President Clinton's rocket strike on the Al Shifa medicine factory in Sudan (and that "we" should therefore hesitate before judging "them"), his erstwhile admirer Christopher Hitchens observed that, "Noam Chomsky does not rise much above the level of half-truth." This, Hitchens went on to complain, had "lately become his hallmarks."
In retrospect, a writer as intelligent as Hitchens might have noticed this habit earlier. In Chomsky's writing on Cambodia (which Hitchens defended), the Balkans, and various other conflicts, complexity was reliably collapsed into a simplistic indictment of the West in general, and America in particular (irrespective of the sitting president's political affiliation). Simplicity can be seductive, especially when it encourages moral outrage, and it wasn't until I saw Chomsky's half-truths deployed in defense of the Bolivarian regime that I began to question Chomsky's honesty and interest in objectivity.
Comment: Black-and-white thinking is a big trap for anti-Imperialist thinkers. Just because you oppose American intervention, that does not mean one should necessarily support those on the receiving end. It's entirely possible to reject Chavez's and Maduro's policies as perhaps well-intentioned but incompetent, and to reject the heavy-handed arrogance of American intervention. The anti-imperialists at least get the latter correct, and you have to look no further than Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine to get an idea of just how destructive and incompetent the U.S. and their allies are when it comes to "democracy promotion". Venezuela needs a change, but it doesn't need the U.S. making things worse either.