>Actually, it was Janet Reno and a three-judge panel who told Starr to pursue the matter.

Yeah, you've got to give Reno credit here (I mean that seriously). No one gives Clinton credit for appointing her, of course.

But it was Starr himself who decided that Clinton's sexual history was _so_ important to pursue, after Paula Jones (who lost). And I'll say it again (and again, until someone finally concedes the fact): the money was spent discovering facts about Bill Clinton that everyone with a brain already knew.

>None of the money would had to have been spent if Clinton had come clean.

We all agree on that: Clinton should have told the truth right out. Forget morality, it was just _stupid_ not to. But then, Clinton ain't exactly the smartest guy who's ever boffed an intern in the Oval Office. :)

>On another note, how do you feel about the $50 million he spent taking 1000 of his closest friends to China earlier this year?

Not good. :) But that sounds about par for the political course. But if Starr wanted to go after him for wasting taxpayer's money, you might find that I (and the American people) would have more sympathy for the investigation.