By Christopher G. Adamo

When Bill Clinton’s Commerce Department authorized the sale of sensitive rocket and missile technology to Communist China, he defended the action by fraudulently claiming the information to only be applicable to non-military purposes, such as satellites and space exploration, relying on a general lack of technological understanding on the part of the public.

From the dawn of the space age to date, the overwhelming majority of American and Russian “civilian” space launch vehicles have been slightly modified ICBMs. The ability to launch a space probe is essentially identical to that needed to deliver a nuclear warhead. Only the targeting parameters need to be altered.

Now, China possesses not only the capability to put men in space (to date, three Chinese have done so), it also has a workable and growing fleet of ICBMs, capable of reaching the United States. Furthermore, Chinese nuclear warheads are greatly improved, employing state of the art technology that was itself illegally acquired from America with suspicious ease during the same period. Clearly, “free trade” has its limits, or at least it should.

In light of Clinton’s treasonous collaboration with the Chinese, and the relative silence of his Democrat colleagues during that entire escapade, present day caterwauling by those same Democrats over the port deal can only be construed as hypocrisy and political grandstanding.

To hear it from these posturing Democrats, the UAE represents the most vile of terrorist insurgencies, unless of course its members are inside the United States, receiving phone calls from Al Qaeda, at which point they suddenly become innocent victims of “domestic spying” by the evil Bush Administration. More fraud and hypocrisy, to be sure.

In light of their past actions, it is apparent Democrats are no more sincere in regards to national security than were they worried about gun safety as they pilloried Dick Cheney, or sexual harassment back when they pursued their “high tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas.

Nevertheless, the outrageous nature of the port situation warrants legitimate cause for great concern. And no mere “cooling off period,” followed by the inevitable “rubber stamping” of the deal, should be acceptable to the American people as a proper fix.

Nor is it satisfactory to press forward with the deal on the basis that its opposition cannot thoroughly quantify every reason for concern.

America, basking in blissful ignorance on September 10, 2001, certainly did not comprehend the scope of ensuing horror it was about to face. If anything should have been learned from that terrible event, it is that the burden of proof does not rest with those who assert the possibility of impending peril, but instead with those who contend that every base is covered and that peace and safety are assured.

A crucial firewall of American security and a jugular vein of its economy will, if the port deal is implemented, be under the jurisdiction of a philosophy that is often proven to be fundamentally hostile to the American culture.

Forty percent of Muslims living in England regard Osama Bin Laden in a positive light. Does anyone honestly presume the percentage to be lower in Dubai? It is undeniable that such people will, in the wake of the port deal, henceforth have a greater presence in American ports, and a more thorough knowledge of their intricate workings.

Such an recognition of the influence of Islam as a fundamental component of the deal is merely reflective of historical fact. It is hardly worthy of President Bush’s accusation of bigotry (which was sadly reminiscent of his attacks on the “Minutemen” and his vapid attempts to put the critics of Harriet Miers to flight). Rather, it is an insight to a religion that is irreconcilably different from Western Civilization, and the Christian principles on which that civilization was founded.

The violence and death resulting from those Danish cartoons, and even more significantly, the indifference to such mayhem exhibited by so much of the Islamic world, are a testament to its true nature, and that of the culture that ensues from it. Ditto in regards to the election of Hamas. In the midst of these tempests, Dubai did not distinguish itself as any bastion of reason or moderation.

Surely, Western civilization ought not unilaterally declare a trade war on Islam. But neither should it remain purposefully indifferent of the degree to which Islam has, for the past fourteen centuries, believed itself to be truly at war against the rest of the civilized world.