Inarticulate vs. Unintelligent

Re: my previous post on the Washington Post piece about Scarborough and other pundits asking, "Is Bush dumb?":

I happened to catch some of Scarborough Country that night (four minutes of my life I will never, ever, ever get back) and the point Joe of the "dead woman in my office" infamy was trying to force on us was that the president is not unintelligent but is merely inarticulate. Horse hockey!

Inarticulate is used chiefly to describe someone who understands material he or she is discussing but cannot communicate these ideas or information effectively. For example, I can be quite inarticulate on the phone; it is not a comfortable medium for me so I often become tongue-tied and try to oversimplify matters just to expedite my ability to get off the GD phone.

Bush, however, does not seem to have a grasp of 99.999999999% of what he discusses, even when it's dumb stuff (remember his "fool me once, shame on me..."?). This makes him unintelligent rather than inarticulate. What is worse is that he's clearly wired for sound, meaning he usually wears a device so that someone feeds him information; even with that help aid, Bush still can't get the message across effectively.