In 2006, we won the House and the Senate. Did we effectively change George Bush's policy? In September 2006 when the REPUBLICANS still controlled the Senate, Senator John Warner allowed the inclusion of a resolution that Bush convene a regional summit to help the Iraqis resolve the political problems between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds (this was taken from Kerry/Feingold) into the must pass defense bill. It passed with no problem. However, I doubt Bush spent a second considering the idea.
After the Democrats took over the Senate, they did pass a resolution that Biden sponsored that boiled down to the same thing, but spoke of the Iraqis considering a less federalized form of government with three relatively autonomous countries. (It passed after Biden was persuaded to
change the proposal from one that called for creating this form of government to one that called for a summit where (and other possibilities) would be considered - but the Iraqis, not the west would draw the lines.) Still, there was NO summit - the Congress could recommend it, but not actually do it.
In addition, in 2007, Reid/Feingold ( essentially Kerry/Feingold) did pass the Senate and House and was vetoed by Bush - overriding the veto was impossible. I assume that this is what would happen on anything where they wanted on foreign policy or use of the military disputing the President.
Just as we could not force a move towards diplomacy and peace, the Congress pushing for anything military AGAINST the wishes of the President doesn't really work. It is like trying to push a piece of string, rather than pulling it.
Where things could get interesting is the vote on use of force against ISIS. The Republicans have had the edge most of the time in this century on "keeps America safe". (Their fear mongering on ebola likely led to some of their support in the last election - even though by any real assessment, Obama was actually pretty good on this -- especially in contrast to Reagan's inaction on AIDS. ) ISIS has demonized itself and I suspect that other than on both extremes, there is support for fighting them. (In fact, the argument with the mainstream of Republicans and the Democratic neo cons has been that they want us to have an all out war against Assad as well.) Here, they - like us when Bush was President - can pass any resolution they want, but as Bush had no summit, Obama does not have to change his policy if he thinks it is unwise.
Even on Iran, although Congress can pass a war authorization -- only the President can actually take us to war. ( Note the IWR - it did NOT start a war in October 2002 -- that happened in March 2003 when Bush ordered the attacks. Note that this is not completely parallel because Bush asked for the IWR, here I am speaking of the fear of a possibility of an AIPAC/Netanyahu ginned up bill that declares war on Iran - obviously not initiated by Obama. They can not force Obama to actually take the country to war.)
= new reply since forum marked as read