I don't have a fancy French word to back me up, but I'm going to disagree. His arguments shouldn't be dismissed out of hand due to his history, but they deserve to come under extra scrutiny. The simplest reason being, as a politician, he is doubtless lying by omission about something, and as he is a politician whatever that something is undoubtedly changes the value equation of his arguments.

I think what I'm saying is given his status as a politician, as well as his history in relation to the subject, we have great cause to suspect him of telling half-truths, which must be evaluated before his arguments can truly be.