>>>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?

Actually, it was Janet Reno and a three-judge panel who told Starr to pursue the matter. None of the money would had to have been spent if Clinton had come clean. On another note, how do you feel about the $50 million he spent taking 1000 of his closest friends to China earlier this year?