I think that most people who are running out to see that film know exactly who Clarke is. The article also states who he is. I think it's better to keep it simple and just provide a couple of things to directly refute Moore's credibility. Too much material of a wide scope will give a tinfoil hat impression, and most people won't bother to read it. One or two short articles that directly refute what they have just seen might actually reach a few people.
Well, I've spent much time arguing with Moore's fans.
They are generally extremely politically ignorant. So they will see Clarke as nothing more then Bush's man doing Bush's will.