Halliburton to the rescue

As the Bush administration continues to stand by its decision on the DPW ports deal, righties opposed to the deal had been fantasizing that Halliburton would be a great choice as an American company alternative and that it would have the added bonus of pissing off Democrats and Bush critics. A win-win in the minds of Bush supporters, who seem more invested with driving liberals crazy than in any concern for contractual propriety or effective use of taxpayer dollars. While the Halliburton-as-contract-saviour was tossed out into the net-ether in the most facile of manners, it actually struck me as not entirely implausible.

With that in mind, what would the phrase, Bush team urges firm to get a U.S. partner, conjure up in your mind? Yep, exactly:

The White House is quietly pushing a Dubai company to "significantly restructure" and partner up with a U.S. outfit to keep the port deal from sinking.

One snag to such a deal may be that sources say the U.S. company best equipped to partner with DP World is Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Cheney.

After undergoing so much scrutiny for its no-bid Iraq contract and the handling of some of its duties there, Halliburton may not be able to help DP World land the deal, a source admitted.

Now, I don't know who this source is, but I have to wonder why this person would think that Halliburton would not pass muster with the Bush administration. Halliburton's Pentagon contract abuses have been under a great deal of scrutiny and, even when obvious abuse has been seen, the US military has chosen to not only to give Halliburton a pass, but actually paid them hefty bonuses.

Just what does this source think would be a problem with Halliburton getting in on the deal? It would reward a well-connected, serial contract abuser, probably waste yet more taxpayers dollars on such abuse and make giddy the White House's ever diminshing base of acolytes. Where's the problem?