let me bring in former congressman joe sestak, former three-star general of the united states navy andin navy intelligence. joe, unpack this for us. had is a situation where we really don't know who we're arming. we think we're arming the right people. there r are a lot of exclamation about no boots on the ground and so really, the $64 question at this hour is is the president right? can we do this mission without putting troops on the ground if they have a force of over 30,000? >> we have to separate it into two pieces. there's the iraq piece where we cannot permit them to have a safe haven, but i think you're talking right now about the syrian piece and that's where they still have about half their forces there. that's a lot tougher puzzle, but we actually do know who the more moderate rebels are. as i've said to you before, ed, we listened in with the radios that we gave them with chips and other things, the jordanian intelligence units there really know who they are. isis is in the north and they're buttressed up against the border with turkey and turkey is over this. so we are abl

he made a good point, he referenced kurt wildon on the eve of his fight with joe sestak, sestak won because a week before the election, the feds stormed into his office and apparently conducting a widespread investigation nothing ever happened to it, after the election. so that's a card those smart to play. >> let me defend my former colleagues at the u.s. attorney's office, they don't storm. that's not the way things are done. >> they had helicopters. and they didn't bring a case, which to me shows good judgment. >> the other thing that rubbed me wrong way about the congressman, his repeatedly being quoted as saying i'm not a lawyer. whenever powerful people say i'm not lawyer beyond what's going on -- i can't understand what's going on. they are surrounded by lawyers, and for them to say that is denial. >> with the conviction in virginia of the former governor and his wife. things are kind of changed, because in that case there was not strong evidence of a kid pro question -- quid pro quo, but the jury was convinced that he he was taking money and it was wrong. that's a change. >> was any

. >> admiral joe sestak, thank you. >>> to developments a the supreme court. the justices will meet for the first fall conference to decide what cases they'll hear this center. front and center could be whether they decide to wade into same-sex marriage. potentially solving the issue nationwide. right now 19 states and the district of columbia allow same-sex couples to marry. let's get to nbc pete williams. good morning. >> good morning to you, jose. >> the question is what will the justice be looking at? >> they have seven lawsuits on challenges to same-sex marriage bans in five state. utah, ohio, virginia, indiana, and wisconsin. all the lower courts in the federal courts agreed the bans were unconstitutional. normally the supreme court's most likely reason for taking a case is if there's a split among the federal circuit. there's no split yet. you might say the court will say we're not going to hear the cases. if it did that, it would leave the lower court rulings intact. right now they're on hold waiting to see what the supreme court will do. it would sudd