These were not bonuses. These were contractual retention payments. This guy, and his group, apparently did a good job in mitigating a much larger loss down to a much smaller level. Contractually, they did the job they were to be paid for. Pay them.
Semantics aside, these were indeed bonuses. Whether contracually required or not doesn't really make any difference although it does provide another point of argument for defending them.
AIG had the legal ability to pay these bonuses one way or the other. This was even written into the "stimulus" package. They also, based on my understanding, had the legal REQUIRMENT to pay them. Changing the rules ex post facto is illegal and wrong. The current outrage is really just class envy that is intentionally being whipped up by our elected representatives. The ignorant sheeple are just lapping it up.