That section is about "Public image and perception", there is a section about "Education". Neutrality requires that each section exposes the fact as objectively as possible. "Public image" can not present him as being in fact an idiot or as being in fact smart, only as being usually portrayed as an idiot, as that is what his public image turned out to be represented by others. In the same why the section "Education" should only state the kind and maybe the quality of the education he received, it can not conclude from it if he is smart or not. It is the task of the reader to conclude whatever he/she prefers. If there were a reliable source qualifying bush's intellectual capacity in some way then maybe it could be considered for addition in the article, but if the qualification were not good probably it would be included for ethical reasons. For the same reason the article can not suggest either that because he some education in certain universities then public image is wrong and doesn't correspond to reality (definitely it can not say that it does). It is the reader's duty to decide.