The intelligentsia on the left have often had their fun with gaffes by Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Dan Quayle to George W. Bush.

It appears as though Democrat presidential hopeful Howard Dean may give the right a similar opportunity for hilarity.

Many have already pointed out Dean's repeated referrals to the Soviet Union as an ongoing concern on Tuesday's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons. That is also a country that must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons much the key to all this is foresight. Let's act now so we don’t have to have a confrontation which may result in force, which would be very disastrous in the case of North Korea and might be disastrous in the case of Iran.

One of Bush's speechwriters should work up some kind of Soviet Union zinger to launch at Dean when debate time comes around.

The more troubling exchange regarded what should be done if Osama bin Laden were captured by our troops. (Note to troops: Don't capture him. Kill him.)

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

It doesn't make any difference? This is not the answer given by someone who aspires to be President of the United States. Dean would rather have this group of judges decide the fate of a terrorist who responsible for nearly 3,000 American deaths.

Bin Laden would receive a show trial before judges from Jordan, Egypt and France -- who would be more than sympathetic to his claims that the Jews were to blame for the terrorist attacks.

What was Dean thinking? How could an individual who wants to lead the United States be so nonchalant about about the final disposition of the man responsible for the deaths of more American civilians than any other?

Dean also expresses concern that justice be served, yet the World Court abhors the death penalty. Would a 20 year sentence for bin Laden's crimes be adequate in Dean's eyes?

This kind of talk may win Dean the Democrat presidential nomination, but it will doom him in the general election.

How can Bush win New York's electoral votes?

Remind New Yorkers that Dean wouldn't let them try and execute bin Laden.