Headline pretty much sums it up:

GOP Critics Blast Obama Administration Decision to Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City

At ABC News, the fact that partisan GOP politicians who ran and lost during the 2008 campaign, and might do so again in 2012, are attacking an Obama administration initiative is news. So ABC News gives Rudy Giuliani and noted national security/terrorism expert Sarah Palin all kinds or space to record their attacks regarding the planned 9/11 trial.

On and on and on the article goes, quoting partisan Republican politicians (for 17 paragraphs) who don't like the idea of having open court trials in the United States. But here's the real kicker in the article; here's the real tell that tips you off to ABC's skewed perspective [emphasis added]:

Yet, Democrats defended the decision.

Excuse me? Republican unleash a partisan attack on the president, yet Democrats defend the White House? What kind of loaded language is that? The “yet” clearly implies that ABC thinks the GOP is dead-on in its analysis and that it's somehow odd or newsworthy for Democrats to defend the administration's decision.

Does ABC News think that just because Republicans “blast” the administration, Democrats should not defend its decisions? Did ABC ever run an article during the Bush years, detailing how Democrats blasted the GOP White House, and “yet” Republicans still defended it?