I apologize if this question does not belong here.

Lately I've read some works of Noam Chomsky, and I've found his use of facts very convincing. I haven't read the book Anti-Chomsky Reader, but I've read reviews of it and think I understand its basic gist. It seems to me that the criticism aimed to dismantle Chomsky is not convincing enough to undermine the apparently very genuine points he presents, even if it does raise questions of his motivations.

Is Chomsky a reliable enough writer (on US political / foreign politics history) for an amateur? If not, why so? I understand that he is not an academic historian, so he might not stand up to standards held by historians, but is he reliable enough for a layperson who recognizes that he might present things in a biased manner (as might anyone else)?