Just one reason why Ron Paul should not be the GOP nominee in 2012

Rep. Ron Paul, libertarian Texas congressman, perennial GOP presidential candidate and opponent of 99.7% of U.S. foreign policy, has finally given his reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden.  As reported May 3 in The Hill:

Paul, a long-time skeptic of American interventionism, said that "like all other Americans, I'm glad he's gone," but raised multiple questions about the costs associated with the 10-year manhunt for the al Qaeda leader behind the 9/11 attacks.

"If we got him, I guess it's time to come home as far as I'm concerned," he said during an interview with Fox Business network.

Engaging straw men is easier than engaging the truth, I suppose.  Does he think the War on Terror was merely a global manhunt for OBL?  No, of course not, but Paul will latch on to any reason he can find, rational or not, to bring the troops home.

Al Qaeda will continue to function without its symbolic leader.  So will terror organizations not related to Al Qaeda.  Most if not all of them remain committed to our destruction.

Paul is ideologically antiwar, so no logic will persuade him that it makes sense to continue our campaign to destroy our enemies’ ability (or will) to make war against us.

The world is a very dangerous place.  It would be immeasurably more dangerous with Ron Paul in the White House.