Former CNN anchor and anti-immigration reform crusader Lou Dobbs appeared on the O’Reilly Factor last night with an interesting announcement. Dobbs told host O’Reilly that he supports immigration reform with a path to citizenship and also lamented his “combative nature” during the 2007 immigration debate. Dobbs continued insisting that his position on immigration hasn’t changed, explaining that he simply overemphasized border security in the past to the exclusion of legalization and that a “wiser Lou Dobbs” has emerged who is committed to promoting both:

DOBBS: I think the essence of the legislation of 2007 is right: pay a fine, learn English, commit to assimilation in the United States, and begin a path to citizenship…there should also be another guest worker program. [...]

O’REILLY: You sound very moderate. As you said, “I’m the tougher guy here.” Why do you think Hispanics come after you so hard?

DOBBS: I think in part — one thing is my own stupidity. I put forward a statement: rational, effective, humane policy…the emphasis became in the debate of my combative nature the issue of border security first and foremost, versus reforming immigration policy. I’m saying the same thing, but I’m keeping it absolutely combined.

O’REILLY: So you’re a kinder, gentler Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: I’m a wiser Lou Dobbs.

Watch it:

Politifact found “no point-blank case” in which Dobbs has explicitly opposed legalizing undocumented immigrants, however he did repeatedly refer to the immigration legislation he praised last night as an “amnesty bill” during the 2007 debate. Dobbs also slammed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President Obama during the 2008 presidential race for supporting “[guest worker] programs that bring in cheap foreign labor at the expense of American workers.” Last month, the anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC announced it was dropping its support of Dobbs, citing a perceived change of views that “deeply offended his base.”

Despite his new proclaimed emphasis on border security and legalization, during the beginning of the segment a supposedly “wiser” Dobbs told O’Reilly that a recent bill introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is nothing but a “a list of what the open-borders amnesty crowd wants.” Gutierrez’s bill would establish an earned legalization program with requirements similar to those proposed by Dobbs and also includes several provisions aimed at beefing up border security.

Today the Jerusalem Post has a blockbuster story about the looming U.S. war with Iran:

US PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE IRAN CONFLICT
Jan. 8, 2010
Hilary Leila Krieger, JPost correspondent in Washingon

The US does not want to see confrontation with Iran but is still preparing its military for that possibility, America’s top uniformed officer said Thursday.

“We’ve looked to do all we can to ensure that conflict doesn’t break out there, while at the same time preparing forces, as we do for many contingencies that we understand might occur,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during an appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

I attended Mullen’s talk at the Washington Institute yesterday, and if Mullen’s answer sounds like pure boilerplate to you, as it did to me, maybe that’s because you’re not trying to gin up a war with Iran. The Pentagon is “preparing” for all kinds of contingencies. Given the prominence of the Middle East, and of Iran, among U.S. national security concerns, it’s safe to say that the Pentagon is preparing more seriously for an Iran contingency than for a Canada contingency, but Mullen gave absolutely no indication, nor could any reasonable person conclude, that those preparations had moved into some significantly higher gear. Indeed, he followed up immediately by adding “On the other hand, striking Iran, that also has a very, very destabilizing outcome.” For some reason, Jerusalem Post correspondent Hilary Leila Krieger stuck that at the bottom of the story.

The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman also attended the event. The only item he found noteworthy was Mullen’s comment about the delay of dwell time expansion for U.S. troops. The only things he found even tweet-worthy were Mullen’s comments on dwell-time, his comments on the destabilizing effects of an Iran strike, and spotting former Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer.

While no one seriously thinks that President Obama is going to war with Iran, it’s clear that there are conservative elements — the stridently hawkish Jerusalem Post being one — that are working to create momentum toward more aggressive action, and to foreclose less destructive options for the administration. Floating a story with a headline like US PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE IRAN CONFLICT, even if it is transparently shoddy journalism, can, by slowly making previously unthinkable ideas more thinkable, serve to prepare people and policymakers to eventually support really, really stupid policies, which is why it’s important to call out this sort of jingoism when we see it.