How can Bush be a great leader when he didn’t lead anyone at the end?

The Telegraph has an amusingly childish piece trying to claim that George Bush was a more effective world leader than Barrack Obama. It would seem the author of this story has not got the first clue about good leadership. He claims that George Bush’s gung ho policy is far more effective than Obama’s one of listening to others. First an effective leader cannot lead without listening to those they lead he doesn’t always do what they want but he should always listen or he will lose his leadership position. By ignoring the majority of world opinion George Bush immediately stopped being a leader and become a loner with few friends. Like an ineffective school bully most ignored him and only a few weaklings and sycophants like Tony Blair followed him.
Take football as an example of leadership. There is a saying that a manager has lost the dressing room it basically means the managers has ignored his players opinions for so long that they no longer want to play for him. The manager is no longer a leader and either has to take great steps to be respected again or loss his job. Bush was not a great leader because he wasn’t a leader at all by the end of his presidency. After 9/11 he threw away the greatest amount of worldwide good feeling and sympathy towards America that there has ever been that is failed leadership right there.