I introduced the topic by saying that the article by Ames is a good counterpoint to the previous article PP put In The News. PP responded that Ames was hysterical. I responded back that I thought Ames’ recitation of recent history was far less hysterical than Molly McKew’s description of current history, or the current geopolitical situation.  None of that makes Ames my “blogging buddy”.

Edit to add: I don't see anyone ramping up fervor for war with Russia. That's bullshit, simplistic paranoid nonsense. Not the least of which, for the foreseeable future, we are still going to be working with Russia against militant Islam.

Notice that that is the first use of the word "war" in this thread.  In the McKew article she brandishes the word ‘war’ probably twenty times. I would like to think we will work with Russia against militant Islam and other perverted ideologues but it becomes more politically dangerous for any politician to support doing so as the Russia bashing and fear mongering goes on at a fever pitch.  McKew also says explicitly, but wrongly, that Putin admitted that “Russia” hacked the election. The relevant part of Putin's statement taken directly from McKew's own supporting link is this by Putin with my emphasis added:

Now regarding hackers: hackers can be anywhere, they can lurk in any country in the world. Of course, the general context of inter-state relations should be taken into account in this case because hackers are free people like artists. If artists get up in the morning feeling good, all they do all day is paint. The same goes for hackers. They got up today and read that something is going on internationally. If they are feeling patriotic they will start contributing, as they believe, to the justified fight against those speaking ill of Russia. Is that possible? In theory, yes. At the government level, we never engage in this. This is what is most important. This is the first point.

Second. I can image a scenario when somebody develops a chain of attacks in a manner that would show Russia as the source of these attacks. Modern technology allows that. It is very easy.

Even if the so far unproven allegations that Putin specifically ordered a misinformation action to affect the election turns out to be true, McKew cannot  not know  that saying Putin admitted that “Russia”, which obviously means in her statement the Russian government, hacked the election, is a gross misrepresentation of his statement. That makes it a lie, a calculated deliberate lie intended, I believe, to lead to or reinforce hysterical conclusions about “Russia” by the reader. Just like the meme now proven by sworn testimony that the conclusion of 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia did the dirty deed is false but is still bandied daily and has even been done by Hillary after that sworn testimony. That demonstrates the essence of my position regarding the two pieces, that Ames fairly accurately recounts a hysterical time in U.S. versus Russia commentary and how it is being mirrored today by so many while McKew, who is a paid adviser/lobbyist for anti-Russian regimes, demonstrates the a current version of Hysterical Russia bashing.   

Just before I read the McKew article I read one from VOX link posted by you in which the author, a onetime Brietbart writer, made the case that political propaganda spread by U.S. politicians and pundits had a great affect on the election by instilling and reinforcing fear and loathing of Hillary. Thanks, he made his point convincingly that propaganda works and its use is alive and well, in a sick way, in the U.S. We agree, I think, that it led to a bad outcome that was so unexpected that to the extent that it helped Trump, propaganda demonstrated its power.

 You assert that the Red Scare is so yesterday and that the U.S. has grown up, as you have, and is much wiser now. The conclusion you assert is that McCarthyism was a particular time in U.S.and was marked by ideas and tactics that politicians, ideologues, pundits, and national opinion leaders will not return to or at least have not returned to yet, that we have matured and moved on. I disagree and I think the evidence is obvious. Something else I read that same day is Dr Cleveland’s installment which made a convincing case, and did so quite elegantly, that the more things change the more they stay the same.