Old Guy is right that Cheney's connection to Halliburton falls short of the usual standards for "conflict of interest." However, there are legal standards for "financial ties" or "financial connections" that Cheney meets. On a few occasions he has declared himself to be free of "financial ties" to Halliburton; he was not telling the truth on those occasions. However, it is reasonable to believe that he was unaware of the specific legal meanings of "financial ties" and simply meant that there was no conflict of interest.

Cronyism is a less well-defined charge. Could Cheney be giving out no-bid contracts because his buddies still run Halliburton? It is possible. Could he be doing it because he expects to go back there after being VP? Again, possible. For this reason, the administration should have accepted bids on the contracts, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. The fact that they did not do this was arrogant (he thought he would get away with it without attracting any media attention), but falls short of being criminal.

Ron is also correct that neither the insurance policy nor the charity pledge eliminates the possibility that Cheney will be better off if Halliburton does better, so it is still possible for a future conflict of interest to arise, and for the administration's awarding of no-bid contracts to Halliburton in Cheney's administration to contribute to increased profits for Cheney. Still, it's not much to nail Cheney on.

The argument that because Clinton did it Bush can do it too is specious. If Bush gave some breaks to Democratic lawyers in Arkansas, no one would complain. If Clinton did it the right wing echo chamber would hit the roof. The fact of Cheney's former connection to Halliburton changes what is acceptable behavior from the administration.