Can a person be called a leader if he refuses to accept responsibility?

No, a leader accepts responsibility for their actions, and for actions that were not necessarily caused by them, at times as well.

It is sad but true fact that the most successful leaders claim responsibility for good things and deny responsibility for the bad ones. Who is going to follow a leader who admits he constantly screws up?

Sure! All you need to define a leader is someone that has followers. An unwilling leader can still inspire.

Exactly ----

That's why George W. Bush had the LOWEST Approval rating in history.

He REFUSED to accept Accountability for his failure.

It's also how America measures the utter Hypocrisy - and Stunning Idiocy of todays Red State Rightie ------ they continue to DESPERATELY seek to disparage President Obama ------ and the ONLY way they can do it is ----- by PRAISING Bush!!

Ergo - Republicans today are such weasels, such perverts, such hypocrites ----- they CANNOT accept ACCOUNTABILITY for the STUNNING FAILURE --------- of Republicanism.

Thanks!!

..

In ordinary circumstances, I would say no. But since I suspect you are referring to Obama's red line statement, I don't agree. You didn't pay attention to why he refused to take personal responsibility for the concept of the red line. Not unusual, of course.

If the question is referring to Obama then my response would be no, he doesn't refuse to take responsibility. That's a mythical talking point the right has thrown around as years, one that is easily refuted.

No, the same with people who blame other for their own mistakes. Anyone who does that is a loser in life.

He, or she, may be called a leader but he/she would be a very poor leader.

So you're angry that a president is actually following the Constitution, rather than acting as a dictator.

I'm just wondering what your point is - or if you even have one?