"the author seems clearly to suggest that for some reason it was Clinton's DESIRE to see the survival of the US threatened."
I don't think it was meant to compromise "survival" but rather to acheive the lib goal of making the US no more powerful than our enemies. Remember, dims/libs don't want the US to be MORE powerful or to be the world's leader. Just ask the editor of the Washington Post. (See recent thread "WASH POST Editor to CHINA DAILY: 'I don't think U.S. should be the leader of the world'".)
I don't know how else one can read the author's statement " the Clinton Administration's policy apparently was designed to . . . to create a huge new malignant communist superpower able to threaten the United States with annihilation."
Once a "huge, new malignant communist superpower" with nuclear abilities is created, there is obviously no sure way to control it.
But even accepting your view, that the goal was not to threaten the US's survival but only to bring us down to the level of our enemies, that would still constitute the worst kind of treason. Again, I don't see the evidence that this was not merely the RESULT of Clinton's actions, but his "DESIGN."
Right. Clinton was willing to risk our national security to achieve a multi-polar world. He wanted the Chinese to be our "Strategic partners" so to placate US power. And how do you do that? You give the Chinese access to US nuclear secrets by leaving the store doors unlocked. Secondly, I remember Madeline Albright said she did not like the idea of the United States being the sole superpower.
I hope Clinton's naivety does not lead to a nuclear war leaving millions Americans dead facilitated by the enemy using US technology.