Well (via Weekly Standard), look who wants a unilateral military action despite the refusal of the United Nations to call for action in the face of a bloodthirsty oil-exporting dictator who slaughters his own citizens? I mean, if they follow their train of logic to the clear destination of their complaints, that is what they are calling for.
Do the editors of The New York Times not even see the connection between what they say they want regarding Sudan and Darfur and what they say was wrong regarding Iraq and the Shias/Kurds? Could they simply be pleading for the vaunted international community to define action over Darfur as morally just so that the editors can sleep well at night knowing they aren't cowboy unilateralists for wanting action? Or are they incapable of judging right from wrong without the wisdom of Kofi Annan and his band of thugs with UN seats?
I will concede that the linear thinking capacity of the Times editorial board may actually be poor enough to miss the connection.