I get what you're saying, just it doesn't matter in the context of this discussion. This article itself does not win/lose any debate about the merits of the Bush presidency, because it simply doesn't engage that debate at all. It does however, dispel the notion of Bush being unintelligent, which is an issue entirely separate from success/failure of the presidency. I have no idea why you are conflating the two. It's a non-sequitur. Like someone writing about the great Vitamin A content of potatoes and you talking about how monoculture of potatoes led to Great Irish Famine. About the same general topic, but you're railing against something that isn't the point. Basically, my point is, I have no idea why you're upset this essay didn't to respond points it wasn't even attempting to respond to in the first place. Thesis of the essay: Bush is smart. I'd say they proved that. Why are you looking for something else?