>>>Bill Clinton has cost us $40 Million to investigate him because he is so hard to nail down.
>
>No, it was Ken Starr's choice to spend that money. You can agree or disagree whether the cost was justified, but Starr's the guy who spent it. Clinton and the American people could no doubt think of better uses. :)
>
>As you might guess, I feel that $40 million is way too much to find out that Bill Clinton is an unprincipled womanizer. Didn't we all know that anyway (and voted for him regardless)? Then what, exactly, has that $40 million that Starr spent bought us?

WE DIDN'T ALL VOTE IN HIM! He was elected by less than 50% of voting Americans. He carried the majority of the popular votes in enough states to get him enough Electorial votes to be elected president (both times).

The money was spent, but if Clinton would have told the truth 9 months ago, a lot less money would have been spent and the Starr report would have been quite a bit smaller. I might be to the point (in the report) where Starr reports about something other than Clinton and Monica.