Safer now? No. I mean, yes.

Last night on his radio show, Matt Drudge played two exchanges in Tim Russert's interview with John Kerry. I think the social science term for this is "flip-flop." Theologically, it's called envy.

The fourth question Russert asked:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?

SEN. KERRY: No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago. And, you know, I think this is one of the difficulties of what I tried to carry in the course of the campaign. It is a difficult argument to carry in the middle of a war. After 9/11, in a war on terror, it is exceedingly hard as a challenger to carry the argument that the incumbent president and your country are not doing what's necessary to protect itself. But we are not.

The fifth question asked:

MR. RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

SEN. KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times. But we've missed opportunity after opportunity along the way, Tim, to really make America safe and to bring the world to the cause. I mean, look, I sat with any number of Arab leaders, and I said to them, you know, "Mr. Prime Minister" or "Mr. President, is your country--do you believe Iraq, being successful there is important?" The answer is yes. "Do you believe that if it's a failed state, that's a threat to the region?" The answer is yes. "Do you believe that it could be a haven for terrorism even more than it is today?" and so forth. The answer is yes. Then you say, "Well, why aren't you there? What is the problem?" And the problem becomes one of the way in which this administration--they will tell you openly--has approached them and the world.