Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
It doesn't sound like a matter of compromise as you put it G-man.



From the article you posted:

    Congressional leaders, flanked by survivors and relatives of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, unveiled compromise legislation Monday to increase federal powers to fight terrorism and limit appeals by death-row inmates.

    President Clinton has expressed concern over the death penalty provision, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said he had spoken with the president about the provision, and feels confident his objection is not strong enough to elicit a veto.

    Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

    Schumer said the bill is "better than nothing" and should get some Democratic votes.

    President Clinton asked Congress to give him the anti- terrorism bill by the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19. And he'll get it. While it might not be all the president wants, administration officials indicate it's a bill he can sign.


So everyone in that article, from Orrin Hatch, to Chuck Schumer, to the Clinton administration to the AP itself called the bill a compromise.

Furthermore, MEM, if you remove your partisan goggles and re-read the article, one of the compromises was that the GOP made the death penalty provisions tougher than Clinton wanted.

So please stop trying to distort this also, with you constant "democrats always good, GOP always bad" spin.