Oh no they didn't

Nick's hymn of praise for Paul Wolfowitz suggests that he is serious about third world corruption but that touchy feely "Make Poverty History" campaigners would prefer to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Actually, it is a little difficult to pin such a definite proposition on Nick, since at one point he says that the MPH people would prefer that the dilemma imposed by corruption doesn't exist and at another he says

All I can suggest is that it would be a mistake for the French, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Benn and all the rest of them to get into the position where it is 'neoconservative' to oppose corruption.

No doubt it would be a mistake for someone to get into that position, whoever "all the rest of them" refers to. A quick surf over to the MPH website and the kind of minimal research google enables you to do in 30 seconds finds a MPH statement on corruption. Ditto, and at considerably more length, Oxfam. No doubt I'd find more if I were to dig around a bit, but I've done enough to establish that MPH and Oxfam think it is not just OK, but actually required, to oppose corruption. So why did Nick write a poorly-reserached (but aren't they all?) column that gave the impression that Oxfam is in denial about corruption? Did he just want to say how wonderful PW is? Probably.