THE TOPLINE: President Obama vetoed a bipartisan defense policy bill on Thursday, prompting condemnation from Republicans. 

The veto -- Obama's fifth so far -- is the also the fifth time the bill -- which authorizes Pentagon policy and funding -- has ever been vetoed.

The veto came mainly over objections to a larger budget fight with Republicans.

The White House wanted Republicans to lift budget caps on government spending put into place by the 2011 Budget Control Act, in order to raise both defense and non-defense spending. 

Republicans were willing to increase defense spending, but not non-defense spending, and devised a budget that left the caps in place, but allowed for a boost in defense only by putting more money into a war fund not subject to the caps. 

While the defense policy bill would not have actually appropriated any funding, it legitimized the plan by authorizing money at the capped level, and the use of the war fund.

Republicans quickly blasted the move, highlighting policies contained in the bill that would have benefited troops and local communities.

For example, the bill reforms the military retirement system that would allow almost 85 percent of U.S. troops to receive retirement benefits, versus only those serving at least 20 years.

It also contains sweeping reforms for the Pentagon's slow and inefficient weapons buying system. And the bill also contains a 1.3 percent pay raise for troops, which would take effect in January.

It also authorizes the administration to provide arms directly to the Kurdish Peshmerga in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and provide arms to Ukrainian forces. 

"At a time when crises around the world have never been greater, and when U.S. global leadership has never been weaker, this veto will only intensify the challenges we face while putting vital missions in danger," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, said in a statement.

Other statements were far more blunt, charging that the president did not care about troops and national security.

"Our troops deserve to know that the Commander in Chief has their back. And when the Commander in Chief does not, it's a signal that the blood we have shed doesn't matter," said Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), a retired Navy SEAL.

"After fighting so hard to make sure Iran's terrorist militia would be well-armed and funded, President Obama is now turning his back on our own American men and women in uniform," said Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), another former service member. 

House Republicans have scheduled a vote to override the president's veto on Nov. 5. 

Democrats tried to counter the Republicans' message, arguing the bill's reliance on the war fund hurts the Pentagon. 

"President Obama and Congressional Democrats have a clear record of supporting a robust national defense, which is why the President proposed a strong defense budget," said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the minority whip.

"I will vote to sustain the President's veto, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing so that Congress can return to the work of passing a bipartisan defense authorization bill, one that advances US national security," he said.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, added, "There is a lot we can agree on here, and if we dropped the OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations war fund] charade and got back to honest budgeting, I believe we could pass a stronger NDAA with near unanimous support."

Some Democrats were more cautious and many were silent on the veto.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) -- who caucuses with Democrats -- called the veto "disappointing."

"I share the President's concerns about the misuse of overseas contingency funds to balance our defense budget, but believe that this defense policy bill is the wrong place to draw the line," he said after the president's veto.

Human rights group applauded the veto, due to the bill's inclusion of more stringent restrictions on Guantanamo Bay detainee transfers. 

But the conservative American Enterprise Institute's Mackenzie Eaglen said the veto could have a big effect on the military.

"Given that the Defense Department is the world's largest organization at 3 million people, there are many new policies that go into effect each year that are critically important and time-sensitive like expanded policies regarding suicide prevention and sexual assault prevention and response," she said. 

She said additional policies that will be delayed as a result of the veto including setting the total size of the US military; establishment of an Army breastfeeding policy; and procedures by which members of the Armed Forces may carry an appropriate firearm on a military installation.

With the president's veto, the bill goes back to the House, where members will seek to override the president's veto. If that fails, they must restart the process again. 

The final version of the bill had passed the House by 270-156 and the Senate by 70-27.

REACTION OPPOSED TO OBAMA'S VETO:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): "This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president's nuclear deal. Congress should not allow this veto to stand."  

Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.): "President Obama's decision to veto the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act is a slap in the face to all those who serve in our nation's military." 

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.): "The President has spoken repeatedly about the good that domestic spending can do, but in states like Virginia, where more than 10 percent of the population is made up of military families and veterans, defense spending is domestic spending."  

Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio): "This action comes a week after the president announced the extension of our mission in Afghanistan, and just hours after one of our brave servicemen was killed while rescuing hostages being prepared for execution by ISIS in Iraq." 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): "Pay and support for our troops and their families should not be held hostage to the President's political posturing."