In this case, Chris is employing yet another logical fallacy (he's nothing if not a fountainhead of fallacies), it is guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. CC advances an argument that Chris associates with Noam Chomsky, therefore CC's idea must be false. No explanation nor reasoning for why the premise itself is false, just the aforementioned logical fallacy.
Now, if you're Chris, what you want to do next is invoke an argument by authority, which is the standard logical fallacy upon which he constructs his rickety claims. "I'm an expert, therefore Opinion A that I advance is true." Or, "Prof. X, whom I know, is an expert on this, therefore his opinion on this is true and yours is not because you lack his credentials."
After all, when was the last time anyone remembers wise people with credentials ever got anything wrong, particularly in the area of politics, particularly in the area of foreign policy?