There's been a lot of speculation about just what Mr. Sulzberger must have been thinking adding William Kristol to his stable of opinion columnists at The New York Times. Yes, Kristol's on record saying the paper should be prosecuted for its reporting on the warrant-less wiretapping program. And some of his predictions have not panned out.

But the weirdest thing about the choice is that Sulzberger and Co. have failed to grasp the taxonomy of the neoconservative literary cartel. David Brooks is the house-broken William Kristol, the cadre tasked with operating just behind enemy lines, or at least in the no-man's-land where only a kinder gentler version of the faith can be propounded. And they already have him.

So why you'd want both Kristol and Brooks on staff is a question that simply has no logical answer unless they got some sort of two for one deal or other kind of group discount.