If it’s an ‘urban myth’, Mr. Trenn, why did Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder hem and haw and seem confused when he was forced to answer Sen. Lindsay Graham’s ‘Bin Laden’ question?

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I’m not — that all depends. I mean, the notion that we –

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over — to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence — for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you’re confusing the people fighting this war.

So, Mr. Trenn, this bit of satire is unfortunately based on reality. I suppose that’s why you find it somewhat disheartening, a tough crow to eat and swallow, and I find it bringing a grim smile to my stone face.

But it’s not OK to ridicule an administration that called off the War on Terror.

I’m sure that a portion of your hard core right wing readers (but not all) will foam at the mouth over this. But if you want to be taken seriously by a larger audience you’d be more discerning as to what you publish. Perhaps you saw this as an opportunity to spread yet another political urban myth. So now, instead of printing the truth, you’ll come off like any other shrill political rag out there that tries to appeal to whatever base it’s going for (either left or right). And you certainly wouldn’t publish crap like this when it hasn’t even been verified.

Exposing lies my ass.