Likewise, those saying it was DEFINITELY cronyism are doing the exact same thing but simply on the flip side of the coin. The only "proof" they seemingly have that this no-bid contract to Halliburton was different than any other contract given to Halliburton in a similar way is that Cheney was connected to the company in the past...which isn't actually "proof" of anything really.
Liberals who take the possability that cronyism may or may not have had some role in it and expand that crack to grand canyon sized proportions of absolute fact and singularity are no more correct than those on the right that act as if its one long piece of solid ground. The finger pointing, on both sides, based on assumptions presented as facts is foolishness.
If it hadn't been Halliburton, but instead a small company who in no way shape or form fit the bill in regards to being legitimately able to fulfill the criteria for a no-bid contract and had no history working with the government in such a capacity (and is never again used after it)...than yeah, I'd be much more apt to cry foul, scream of cronyism, and think something fishy happened. Then it would definitely look like someone just fulfilling their interest.
That just wasn't the case though.