Ron Paul launched his 2012 presidential campaign on Good Morning America Friday, after shocking even some fans earlier this week by saying that he would not have authorized the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. "It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said, arguing that it would have been better to cooperate with Pakistan, "the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed." Given how enthusiastically the public has backed Obama's decision, did the Texas libertarian just sabotage his 2012 campaign before it started?

Paul is officially unelectable: "We can now add [his opposition to] the raid on bin Laden's compound to the list of other Ron Paul positions that make him unelectable," says John Hudson at National Journal. And this whopper will likely be even less popular than his suggestion that we do away with the Department of Education. Paul could not have picked a worse way to kick off his presidential campaign.
"Ron Paul says he wouldn't have ordered bin Laden raid"

At least he sticks to his principles: Opposing the bin Laden raid is obviously "very controversial," says Brian Doherty at Reason, but it aligns perfectly with everything Paul's said about foreign policy. He believes "that the U.S. should not and need not act like a power that can do whatever it wants wherever it wants," and that we should treat all other nations with the same sympathy and respect. Whatever GOP primary voters think, Paul is, at least, consistent.
"Ron Paul for president: It's (very close to) official"

Well, his principles are wrong: Paul's economic views are grounded in reality, says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, but when it comes to foreign policy, the man clearly "lives in a fantasy world." Paul notes that if bin Laden had been hiding in London, we would have cooperated with the U.K. No kidding. But the British spy agency, MI-5, "didn't spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan's ISI did."
"Paul: Killing OBL 'absolutely was not necessary'"