Halle Berry?

No, Halliburton.

Wow. The Johns really like beating a dead horse with this Halliburton thing. And why not? Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton at one time. So it looks like there's some favoritism on the "no-bid contract."

My aunt advised me to look at history, before forming an opinion on these types of issues, so I have done that with our good friends at FactCheck.org and Rich Lowry of Town Hall.com.

Item #1: Cheney will profit from the no-bid contract. This is untrue because all monies paid to the VP by Halliburton is deferred compensation. Every dime paid to Cheney was earned while he was CEO leading up to the campaign when he resigned his position.

Item #2: Bush/Cheney colluded with Halliburton to grant them the no-bid contract. Well, if Bush is to blame, the poster-boy of the Dems is to blame as well. Halliburton was winning no-bid contracts from 1992-1997, during the Bush-41 and Clinton years.

Item #3: This was a no-bid contract. I'll admit, this is in-part true. However, some folk scapegoat Cheney before delving deeper into the issue. As Lowry points out, the Army has a competitive bidding war prior to contracting. Why you ask? Because many of these contracts (especially during wartime) need to be executed in a moment's notice, thus leaving no time for a bidding war. Does anyone ever wonder if there is another company that can even undertake a job like this? Being shot at, having the necessary resources to complete this job... things like that.

This is a really feeble argument as to why Bush/Cheney shouldn't be reelected. I'd buy the arugument if the Texas Rangers all of the sudden were winning world series...