Great reporting from the Washington Post, which apparently broke this story on AIG's executive bonuses. This breaking news piece provides extensive factual evidence, though much of it is from anonymous sources speaking off the record. This is nevertheless an excellent report about an important issue.

Straight journalism based on unidentified sources. It’s also full of pussyfooting statements: “nearly sank AIG.” Nearly? When the government hands over more money than several countries’ budgets, "nearly" doesn't hack it. “Retain talented staff.” Talented? In which way? “Top executives willing to forgo bonuses.” How about “top executives fired” instead of "forgoing"? If AIG is too big to fail, time to whittle it down to failure size.

This story makes my skin scrawl. Highly specialized?A monkey could not have done a worse job.While the writers did a good job of explaining the reasons, the reasons stink. Let the bastards sue.

A rather passive look at the disgrace's running AIG, Including Paulson's selection Liddy Good overall reporting on the issue and the administration's direction on this, lets see if they can stick to it. Geithner's lack of credibility and poor record should be a focus of why no one listens to or respects him. (the writer could have developed this better)