It seems that Olbermann, Huffington, and much of the Left media are taking a “wait and see” position before tearing into President Obama, but the their unhappiness with his continuation of Bush policies, especially on Bagram, is evident. From Monday’s Countdown:

OLBERMANN: Clearly, these are two different presidencies and two different presidents. But why this seeming growing convergence on what we could loosely called “national security issues”?
HUFFINGTON: Well, there is convergence and there‘s divergence. So, all the incidents that you mentioned are troubling especially the Friday ruling on Bagram. But I think we need to make a clear distinction between rulings like the Bagram ruling, which was wrong and disturbing, and what different nominees say like Leon Panetta on what may happen but has not yet happened. And we need to make the distinction very clear because unless something becomes a ruling, then it‘s not a convergence. But there‘s no question that everyone who cares about civil liberties and who thought Barack Obama would be a clear divergence has to be watching very carefully.
OLBERMANN: To the question of what may yet happen or not, the “New York Times” asked whether current agreement between these two administrations is hard and fast policy or if it‘s temporary holding patterns. I think I know the answer to this. But—do you generally come down on the idea that most of these opinions from the Obama administration are holding patterns, investigations or could they be unfortunately permanent?
HUFFINGTON: Well, in some cases, they‘ve said that they are having a review process like Guantanamo. In some cases, they‘ve made rulings that are very good like ending CIA “black sites,” allowing the International Red Cross to visit detainees, and limiting interrogation techniques. All that has been good. But there is nothing said about the Bagram ruling that may be temporary. There is nothing said that made us believe that there is a review under way.
OLBERMANN: What happens if that continues to be case or if after one of these six-month reviews, renditioning, for instance, continues on or other detentions without legal rights. What happens then?
HUFFINGTON: Well, everybody who cares about what are the fundamental American values of fairness and justice and due process needs to vociferously and unambiguously oppose the Obama administration. I don‘t think there is any alternative to that. I, just at the same time, wanted to make sure that that happens when there are clear and unequivocal rulings, because, you know, there was a Greek philosopher, Diogenes, Keith, who used to go around and begging from statues. And they asked him why he did that, and he said he was practicing disappointment. So, we don‘t need to be practicing disappointment. We can wait and when there‘s reason to be disappointed, we need to express and we need to call on Congress to exercise checks and balances. And there are many in Congress, including Jane Harman, who have made it clear that they are planning to exercise checks and balances.
OLBERMANN: What happens, however, if the left does have to protest? And inherent in a protest against the Democratic president—is there some loss of the argument that Bush had done this stuff for bad reasons?
HUFFINGTON: Well, you know, Keith, I never thought the argument against Bush was bad reasons. They were bad policies, whatever the reasons. And they were bad policies in terms of America‘s safety. In the new book by Tom Ricks, General Petraeus and his colleagues in Iraq were quoted saying that these policies made America and our troops less safe, that they provoked a lot of worse attacks on American troops.So, that‘s really what—and it‘s not a right versus left case. It‘s a right versus wrong case.