I know most people have a fairly vague understanding of miranda but I'm reasonably sure he could figure out a decent way to answer that without giving a devastating soundbite out, though obviously he didn't think so, and the case could be made that if you can't answer a question without automatically sounding bad then the answer probably is bad. I rarely find 'the public is too stupid to understand' an appealing argument for obfuscation, regardless if it might be true

Anything he might have to say about other cases that parallel bin Laden's has to reasonably be allowed to include the SOB as an example, we can't go around assuming the law covering terrorist X should be different then for him, so if answering it about someone else would be cool but not about bin Laden, because answering it about him would generate a soundbite, then that's the breaks and he just has to take his lumps. Pursuing a policy that's not favored with the public isn't necessarily wrong, but when you are, pretending it's not and you aren't basically is.