George W Bush plays much dumber than he is. It's hard to get an unbiased opinion on the matter since it can be used to score political points, but he definitely has >100 IQ.
I used the wrong example: nothing creates cognitive dissonance faster than politics or religion. But, that said, it's not a show. He's quite consistent in the types of grammatical mistakes he makes, such as simple subject-verb agreement, for example, and they indicate that he's either aphasic or mildly-retarded.
'Upon its completion, Bush was promoted to the officer's rank of second lieutenant required for pilot candidates. He spent the next year in flight school at Moody AFB in Georgia from November 1968 to November 1969. The aircraft Lt. Bush trained aboard were the T-41 Mescelero propeller-driven basic trainer, T-37 Tweet primary jet trainer, and the T-38 Talon advanced jet trainer. Bush ranked 22 out of 53 students in his flight school class with a grade of 88 on total airmanship. His scores included 100 for flying without navigational instruments, 89 in flight planning, and 98 in aviation physiology. Bush also completed two weeks of survival training during this period.
Bush then returned to Ellington in Texas to complete seven months of combat crew training on the F-102 from December 1969 to June 1970. This period included five weeks of training on the T-33 Shooting Star and 16 weeks aboard the TF-102 Delta Dagger two-seat trainer and finally the single-seat F-102A. Bush graduated from the training program in June 1970. When interviewed by the Associated Press in February 2004, flight instructor Maj. Udell recalled that Lt. Bush was one of his best students saying that, "I'd rank him in the top five percent."' --http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml
But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...
Note to down voters: do some research. First of all, there was widespread support for invading Afghanistan in both the US (over 90%) and in Afghanistan (also in the 90% range). This was not the case for Iraq.
Second, Iraq was based on questionable intelligence that there might be things going on there that could potentially lead to attacks on the US at some future time. Afghanistan was in response to an attack that had already occurred by groups that were operating out of Afghanistan.
Third, Congressional support for the Afghanistan invasion was 420 yes, 1 no, 10 not voting in the House, and 98 yes, 2 not voting in the Senate. For Iraq, the House was 297 yes, 133 no, 3 not voting, and the Senate was 77 yes, 23 no. FFS, even Ron Paul voted for invading Afghanistan.
There is no way you can make a plausible case that Bush supporting the Afghanistan invasion indicates low intelligence, whereas you can kind of make such a case for Iraq.
>even though neither country attacked the U.S
Afghanistan attacked the US by allowing an terrorist group who declared war on America plot an attack on the United States from their country.
>and therefore attacking both of them was a U.N. Charter violation, which we are of course signatories to.
The UN Charter allows for self defense AND the UN authorized the attacks. In fact the ISAF is a UN operation.