this sunday, what now in afghanistan? in this election year a new debate has erupted when to withdrawal u.s. forces for what's become the longest war in u.s. history. >> we're going to complete this mission and we're going to do it responsibly. >> my exclusive guest, ranking member of the senate armed services committee, john mccain, who will weigh in on the latest twists of the gop race. can romney outlast rivals as another primary in illinois? a special roundtable discussion as we learn more about the u.s. soldier allegedly behind the massacre of afghan civilians. what are our troops going through over multiple deployment in war zones in iraq and afghanistan? with us, afghanistan war veteran

and author, wes moore. iraq war veteran and executive director of veterans of america, paul rieckhoff. author of "where men win glory" about the death of paul tillman, jon krakauer, bob woodard and helene cooper. finally, my conversation with george clooney on his fight to stop ethnic cleansing in sudan george clooney on his fight to stop ethnic cleansing in sudan and some politics as well. captions paid for by nbc-universal television good morning. republicans in purt rerto rico o the polls there. >> we're going to show on tuesday that the conservative movement in illinois is alive and well on election night on tuesday. >> after a pair of third place finishes last week in alabama and mississippi, mitt romney is

fighting hard now for a rebound in illinois, trying to cement his delegate lead. this is how it looks. it stands at 423 delegates. santorum at 184. gingrich and paul farther back. here to talk about the nomination fight here at home as well as the continuing fight abroad for security in afghanistan and the toll it's taking on u.s. troops, arizona senator john mccain. senator, welcome back. >> thank you, david. >> i want to talk about afghanistan, but i'd like to start with a little politics and where we are in this race. rick santorum was interviewed on the "today" program this week and he made a pretty strong point. watch it. what chance do we have in a general election if you can't with over whelming money advantage be able to deliver on any kind of knockout blow to other candidates? >> he's saying, how is romney going to be a general election candidate if he can't take care of these other guys? how did we get to a point where the guy who seemed to be the faith to win the nomination can't eliminate what seems to be weaker opponents? >> i think there are several reasons. obviously, mitt romney will tell you, first of all, he has to do

a better job. he's working on doing a better job. he's got to focus more on the economy. he's been given major speeches on the economy and jobs. and i think he is improving dramatically as a candidate, but also the proportional distribution of the delegates. any campaign before, we had -- we had winner take all. if it was winner take all, you would have seen those numbers significantly different. also, the super pacs have played a key role, unfortunately in my view, because most are negative ads, driven up unfavorables of all the candidates and made it much more difficult to win the election. >> you worry about tone. you've been in nasty -- >> this is the nastiest i have ever seen. again, when you have las vegas casino mogul, by the way, who gets part of his money from a cow, pouring $20 million into one campaign, and most of those are negative ads, obviously, that drives up people's

unfavorables. so, it's -- it's the result of the worst decision the united states supreme court has made in many years. the citizens united decision where out of naivety and sheer ignorance the majority of the supreme court just unloosened all -- released all money now. there will be scandals. there will be scandals and then maybe we'll reform again. >> let's talk about somebody you've known a long timing newt gingrich. you look at this field. gingrich looks like he's fading but he says i'm in this all the way, i'm tag-teaming romney. what do you do about that? >> again, because of the super pacs and the ability to get these huge blocs of money, probably stay in as long as he has bus fare. i'm not telling him to get out. that's a decision they have to make. but i think it's clear his chances of succeeding and getting the nomination are very slim. so the beat goes on. >> how about the prospect of a contested or brokered

convention, is this beyond fantasy? >> i just don't think it's going to happen. it's never happened. i think mitt is going to win in illinois on tuesday. and i think we have every chance of that. i think it's going to be okay, but in my view, it's gone way too long and it's gotten way, way too personal and attacks on character and all of that have been very unfortunate. again, who has benefitted from it? president obama. >> let's talk about president obama because the battleground's going to be the economy. that's the message governor romney is bringing already to president obama. vice president biden is out on the trail and he's making a different point, about a sense of economic optimism in the country. this is what he said speaking this week. >> it's not just the automobile industries coming back, folks. manufacturing is coming back. the middle class is coming back. america is coming back! >> now, even -- >> nice tan. >> he did look tan there, didn't he? >> governor romney says the economy is improving, we're in

recovery. the big rap against you in 2008 going against president obama, he connected better on the economy. how does romney this optimism in the economy and take on the president and say, no, really, we could have recovered faster? is that really the message he can take to voters? >> no. facts are stubborn things. when we pass the stimulus package -- by the way, we've gone from $10 trillion in debt to $15 trillion in debt. we used to say we're mortgaging our grandchildren's future and children's. we're mortgaging ours thanks to this incredible view the president of the united states has that government creates jobs. that's how you get solyndra, given to a mature industry which is just crazy because it's got to do with his philosophy, which is that government creates jobs. mitt romney believes that business creates jobs. he's had that background and he backed businesses that succeeded. he backed businesses that failed. $5 million in a warehouse and now you have staples. so, that's what this campaign's going to be all about.

and if joe biden and the president are happy with 8.3% unemployment, then run on that. we'll be glad to see you run on that. >> are you -- are you concerned at all to see a focus, certain element of the republican party on social issues? in your own state of arizona there's this contraception bill that even the governor has said would put women in uncomfortable position where they would have to say to their employers why they wanted contraception and why it's covered. is that a bad road? >> i'm confident that legislation will not reach the governor's desk. if it did, it would be vetoed. >> it's the wrong legislation? >> well, look, it certainly doesn't reflect, in my view, the majority view of the people of arizona. >> do you think there is something of a war on women among republicans? >> i think we have to fix that. i think that there is a perception out there, because of the way that this whole contraception issue played out, we need to get off that issue, in my view. i think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear. and get back onto what the

american people really care about. jobs and the economy. jobs and the economy, something we'll be talking about here pretty quick, and that is, obviously, this long involvement and long and difficult struggle in afghanistan. >> well, that's exactly where i wanted to go next. we're learning more about staff sergeant robert bales who allegedly committed a massacre of civilians in afghanistan. multiple tours. this is a picture where he's been identified. as we learn more about him, father of two, apparently was having financial problems, you know, was behind on his mortgage, was quite disappointed to learn of a fourth tour between iraq and afghanistan. what are your thoughts about him and what we're learning about him? >> it's a great tragedy. it's a great tragedy and can i say that i am proud of the treatment of our veterans by the american people and our government and the president of the united states and the first lady, and i am very proud of all of that. tragedies ensue in wars. we've seen it in every war. that's why those who have known war hate it the most.

all i can say is that we will continue to do everything we can to try to bring about as much treatment and care for those who have suffered the wounds of war, both visible and invisible. let me say, the irony here, as far as afghanistan is concerned, general allen's plan is succeeds. we have succeeded on the ground. we have made dramatic gains. the fact that karzai is acting like he is, we can go into a little more. but on a pure military tactical standpoint, we are winning. but what the president keeps talking about is how quick we're going to withdrawal. so, put yourself in president karzai's place. you see in the front page of "the new york times" it says, debate in the administration, how about how quick the withdrawal, how speedy the withdrawal is going to be. well, president karzai has ambition to stay there. one predecessor was hung from a lamp post in kabul. instead of saying, we're going

to win this war, what president obama said in 2008, quote, the good war we must win. instead, all we hear about is plans for withdrawal. plans for withdrawal. how quick the withdrawal will be. how about a commitment to victory? the american people understandably are terribly war-weary. ien that. but it requires a leader who can explain to the american people why this can succeed. three times the president has gone against the recommendations of his military advisers. the first one was, of course, is when he announced that we would have 30,000 in a surge instead of on 40,000. i think what we got to do is understand how tough this is, convince karzai that we are there to win, and we still have intractable problems such as corruption and the pakistanis. >> this is what always trips me up on this question of how we define victory. i mean, to be fair to the president, he came in here after other -- you and others criticized the bush policy for

really hamstringing the effort in terms of what we had to actually do in afghanistan. he surges up forces. now gets to a point where the american people are saying, 60%, it's not worth it. and at least he's saying, look, we surged up. don't we have to be a little more clear about what we can actually accomplish and what we cannot accomplish? as we get out of afghanistan? >> i think we have to be clear about what the goal is and that the president keeps saying, well, we're going to withdrawal. if he had given the military leaders, ones he appointed, 40,000 troops instead of 30,000, and hadn't said we were going to withdraw early, maybe we could are done what's necessary in eastern afghanistan and things would be a lot better than they are today. >> can i -- >> i can also tell you that american presidents lead. the same reason the president won't lead on syria, where president clinton would lead on bosnia and kosovo, this president won't lead while people are being massacred in syria. that does not mean america goes it alone, but it means america

should lead, which the president refuses to do. >> senator, how do you get a reset of our foreign policy and national security policy that has some realism to it and understands the boundaries of what we can actually accomplish? isn't afghanistan a perfect example of al qaeda's not there, you have a corrupt central government that is likely to fall. we fought there for so long thinking we were going to defeat the taliban when the taliban is going to have to run the country in some way or form, despite our concerns about women and girls in that country. don't you have to have a leader who says, we can't do this forever? we have to be realistic about what we can achieve. and bring most of our folks back? >> first of all, the taliban has been basically decimated to a large degree. it's not necessarily true that they have to, quote, run the country. in fact, if there's anything good about this breakdown of the negotiations with the taliban, we're not going to free up five hardened taliban individuals from guantanamo who would re-enter the fight in the view of most of us. the important point is that we

have succeeded on the ground. there's been 1,000 acts of kindness, which i meant to mention at the beginning, on the part of american troops. the relationship between american troops and afghanistan is wonderful. and when these things happen, then it just really sets back everything a great deal. but we have succeeded on the ground in afghanistan. we have control of key parts of the country. if the president won't accelerate to withdrawal for the 68,000, as continues to be bandied about in the media, we can withdrawal with a stable government in kabul. and when you say that if the taliban take over again, there's one thing that history shows us, that al qaeda will be back with the taliban and that's the place where 2001 and 9/11 began. >> but don't you -- don't we have to be realistic as a country yourself, kind of to your point, that our interest, our national security interests are so entangled that we'll have to have some presence to make sure the government does not fall, perhaps for decades, for

decades. >> yes. what was lost, david, unfortunately in this tragedy of the sergeant was that we concluded half of a very important strategic partnership agreement. which, by the way, senator lindsey graham was a key element in. two sticking points. one was detainees and the other is night raids. we got half of it done. we could conclude a strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan, which would send a message to the bad guys that we are not leaving and it's very important. and i am pleased to note that the administration is working very hard on that. if we could get that with karzai, i think it could change the environment to a more optimistic -- >> i left something hanging out there. do you agree we have to have some presence there for perhaps as long as decades if we're really going to achieve some of these goals? >> we have left troops in korea. we have left troops in japan. we are troops in germany. we have troops all over the world, in countries all over the world. why is it okay with the american people? because we don't have casualties there. if we can have a peaceful environment and a long-term

relationship with afghanistan in a peaceful afghanistan, the american people wouldn't mind that. what they mind is, obviously, the continuous casualties and tragedies such as we've just seen. >> why is it too much? or why isn't it too much to push ahead with what you're talking about in syria when we're committed the way we are in afghanistan? >> the same reason the united states of america has intervened in other times and other places. president bill clinton at the time of bosnia said there are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. first of all, general testified that if syria went, that would be the greatest blow to iran in 25 years. but the important thing is, people are being slaughtered and massacred in an unfair fight. assad is being supplied by russians. iranians are on the ground. they're being massacred. now estimates as high as 10,000. working with other countries and no boots on the ground and no

unilateral action, we could join with others and lead and bring about the end of one of the most brutal dictators on earth. >> before you go, to switch gears -- >> we covered a lot of territory. >> we covered a lot of territory. this is your 64th appearance on this program. i was joking, you've been on this show more than i have. we've got some pictures of you over the years here where you've come here and you've talked about politics and national security and you've done it on this platform, which we appreciate very much. i just wonder, as you reflect, as you think about -- you've run for president, you've been in the senate a long time, you've served in the house. how do you think you've evolved in your public life and what's most important to you now? >> well, without getting into psychology session, i hope i have become more informed. i hope i have become more tolerant. i hope i have been a person who is more respectful of the views of others.

especially on issues such as this, as we were just talking about, about life and death. and eye been, frankly, privileged to be on this program as many times as i have because it's my opportunity to talk to the american people. and i'm grateful. >> senator, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> appreciate it, as always. coming up, what now in afghanistan? what about the lasting toll war is taking on our troops? we'll continue in a special roundtable discussion next. a little later on, george clooney talks about politics.

coming up, a special roundtable discussion on the costs of war. joining me, helene

we're back with our roundtable. joining me white house correspondent for "the new york times," helene cooper, and from the "washington post," bob woodward, and author of "where men win glory," and an iraq war veteran, paul rieckhoff. welcome to all of you. i wish we did not have the focus on this conversation. you have a tragedy in afghanistan with the death of afghan civilians and the tragedy of our forces, some of whom are put in a situation where the cost of war is so high, it's affecting them in the theater of war, war that goes on and on. we see the photo of robert

bails, and more is being learned about him. more in the headlines have come out about what may have been behind this rampage is also striking. he was a soldier strained by deployments. it was his fourth deployment between iraq and afghanistan, and this caught my eye this week about the question of what was behind this, and where military institutions are failing our soldiers. and a retired major wrote this in the washington post. before we get too involved perhaps it might be right and proper to suggest the underlying position is not the failure of our army, and could the issue be no institutional effort can make up trying over the past ten years to fight too many wars with too few soldiers. paul rieckhoff, regular people that i spoke to said after this, we have to get out of here. >> let's break that apart. what is true is our troops are

being asked to do an unprecedented amount of work. nobody has been asked to do so much for so long. less than one-half of the 1% of the american public. the facts continue to unfold. our troops are under tremendous strain but there's not a connection with traumatic brain injury and murderous rampages like this. the troops are honorable and courageous, and we have to make sure we don't let this man represent so many that have done so much for the country and while most folks have not been paying attention. this is what it took for the country to have this conversation, about the inequality of what we're asking these folks to do. >> well, let's talk about it from the other side, here, from the afghan side here, which is the scale of this tragedy. we were talking about last night with some folks you have been in touch with, about our efforts

there? >> we don't understand why the afghans are so upset about accidentally burning korans, and talking to an afghan friend, he was saying you don't know what it's like -- it's not just this, but you spent ten years of death, and how would you feel if an afghan was in your country and killed 16 people? and this -- this -- the whole counter insurgenty idea, you are asking the soldiers -- they are trained to fight and not trained to be the peace corps. you are asking them to do two things you can't reconcile. you are fighting and at the same time there's any collateral damage or casualties, the whole country will erupt and you just negated all the work you have done and that was never taken into consideration when the counter insurgenty was done.

>> helene, how are we defining this? >> that's the fundamental question. senator mccain, when he was talking about being committed to victory was again talking about a counter insir skwrupb see strategy. i think nothing -- when president obama decided to do his hybrid, you know, i am going to do a little counterterrorism and counter insurgent sea, but the american people will never dedicate what you need to dedicate to that strategy. this came out at a point where we are eight years into this war. there was no way of the idea of winning the hearts and minds of the afghan people, the strategy could work unless we were in there for a long time. i was talking to somebody at the white house after this massacre, and they said that there's nothing more than could drive a stake into the heart of counter

insurgentcy than this. you have to ask, what are we doing there? >> i am not sure it's doomed at all. if you talk to people in the army, there's a couple facts. the first is this is not a broken army. they are over there, brave and doing their job. i think the question is, is it right for a country or for a commander in chief, the president, to ask so much of these people? i mean, armies get used up in war always, and in particularly do they get used up in long wars. this war has been so long. you talk to the generals and you talk to the people involved in this, and they think if they can keep the troop level high, they have a strategy, they can make it kind of like iraq, where we have a phased withdrawal, and is it's a victory or stalemate, and

we don't know yet in iraq, but it's not something that is hopeless. >> the out come is not going to be like iraq. you can't compare them. >> you just don't know. >> we know a lot of things. >> no, you don't. look at iraq, everybody was running around and saying it will never work. there's a stalemate. let's be realistic about it. that's factual. >> there's structural differences. this is not a broken army. the troops coming back now, they are courageous and fearless. they have all the qualities every employer in america wants to see in their employees. they need to be some type of negotiations conversation between the taliban and the karzai government. if there is one group of people the karzai government trusts less than the american people is the taliban. and the only way that we're going to have any type of stability going forward is if

there's negotiation and that's what my friends are seeing, they are stuck in the middle between the two forces. >> i want to get back to the tough policy questions in just a minute, but i want to continue on the topic of what is going with our troops and some statistics here alarming. you talk about traumatic brain injuries since 2001, it's nearly 200,000. post traumatic stress disorder cases, almost 100,000. and suicides in the military, about 1,000. and then soldier deployed three or more times since september 11, it's over 100,000. we will be dealing with the cost of war and while we are in it and after we are in, moral questions and financial questions as we move forward. >> war is incredibly tough. it's painful and expensive. it doesn't go away after we pull out of iraq or afghanistan. the toll it will take on the

troops and the families and the iraqis and afghans will go on for decades. most at home are doing well, but a percentage are not. many are coming home with issues. the suicide rates have been higher than the casualty rates. that's just active duty and army. there's no way to track suicides in veterans when they leave the military. we see a 17% unemployment rate. we have to ask ourselves, if we care so much about the troops and veterans, what are we doing to scale against that? are we putting our money where our mouth is? if this forces them to take note and get involved and do something about it, that's a good thing, let's have that conversation. >> helene, from the mccain point of view, should the president take the knocks where he is rushing for the exits because of your point, and is he hurting the policy because he wants to

find the path out? >> i think that would be senator mccain's argument, but when you hear president obama talk about it, and he consistently talks about it, how he feels when he sees the troops coming back, and he was talking about the israel and iran strike, and he brought it up again, when i am ordering the force, i am looking into the eyes of those people over there. is it really us who has been at war? no, it's our military members who have been at war. we have been insulated. we have been going to the grocery store, and maybe we might know somebody that is going to war, but at the end of the day, it's not -- i don't think the country really feels in a personal way that they have been in it. i think that's part of the dialogue we need to be having. it's how much we ask of such a small group of people. >> yes, what do we owe them? we owe those people doing the

work everything. i think president obama understands that. if he were here on sodium pen tau thaul, he would say i feel stuck. war is ugly, and there's no simple way out. the military experts are telling him, you know, keep 68,000 troops there through the fighting season next year, and we can extract ourselves in a way -- now, you know, is that going to work? we don't know. but i think the agony of command really falls on him, and i think he is emotionally -- >> the tough part, jon, is in part because we have seen the history of just turning our back on the region before, so in your fantastic book, "where men win glory" about pat tillman, you read something in the postscript, and it says a lot about where we may be going. if staying in afghanistan is looking more and more like a

no-win prospect for the united states, so too does pulling out. both options are fraught with uncertainty. american soldiers are apt to be engaged in afghanistan for years to come, if not decades. if recent events are any indication americans are fighting and dying in pakistan as well -- that was in 2009. does that hold true now? >> yeah, it was clear then and it's clear now. pakistan -- afghanistan blames pakistan for their problems for good reason, and pakistan -- you have to think about what pakistan is concerned with. it's concerned about india. until you make peace with india and pakistan, over nuclear weapons, that's going to be there for decades. it's going to be a long, simmering war. you can't act unilaterally. you have to consider these very complex motives and interests in each of the countries. >> i asked you about redeployment. we were talking about that, and

you were there with guys who would be deployed for a year, and then what would happen -- >> i agree, the army is not broken. those guys are so stressed. i was in afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, when the 10th mountain division learned their 12-month tour had been extended. some of those guys went back to new york, and they were in new york when they learned that they had to go back, and they were not allowed to see their families and they had to get back on the plane and go to afghanistan. that was devastating, and that's just one unit. >> the military may not be broken, but it's tired. we have to ask ourselves, is it fair for them to go back for tours. is it good for america to have such something that exists.

it's about time we started to have this discussion. the commander in chief has to ask the american people, is this the way we want to run our country, and not just our wars. when john mccain served, everybody had a personal connection. now you can -- we know about pat tillman, and wes moore, because so few have served. >> it's also uncertainty. you have so many men and women waiting on orders to go into a mission and operation and they still have no clue what the objectives are. if you look at the surge, the surge in many ways accomplished objectives it set out to accomplish. and we have close to 180,000 afghan national army forces trained, and we can say we accomplished a great deal, but to think about the continued cost of $120 billion a year being put towards afghan

expenditur expenditures, and it's not put together by nato forces, but president karzai who came up with the date. >> the decider here is president obama. if you go back 2 1/2 years when he decided to turn 30,000 more troops to afghanistan, there was a lot of agony in that, and the general and his adviser in the white house had one of these moments, let me tell you what i really think, and he said to the president, he said this is a calculated risk, and in fact the risks are cumulative, so it amounts to a gamble. i think that's the most realistic assessment even now. it is a gamble. >> we are dealing with karzai, and he calls our troops demons. we are not demons. and our troops over there, despite this incident are trying

to save the people and protect the afghan people. we are not demons, anymore than the afghan people can be connected with the actions of taliban. >> i want to talk a little presidential politics. part of that, helene, is u.s. influence around the world. the u.s. role on the word. what is a reset of the foreign policy look like in the face of, you know, emerging threats, iran, on going threats, and to paul's point, if the army is so tired and our troops are so tired, so is the country, and war weary. the idea that we can keep meeting obligations in the leadership tests, it strains a reasonable outlook about political politics and presidential leadership? >> you see that again and again and again now when you see the foreign policy -- the national security challenges we are facing right now. you see, unlike iraq now with

the iran situation, iran's nuclear program, you see much more discretion about what would happen on day two after an american military strike, and with syria you heard senator mccain talking about the need for leadership on syria, but at the end of the day the obama administration does not want to do any sort of military action in syria because it's so complicated. we have to take into account the entire load that this entire military apparatus has been under and the strain it has been under for ten years, and the obama -- president obama talks a lot about sharing the burden, and he talks about multilateral, and the united states should have a leadership role around the world and it should be in conjunction with other countries, and it's like starting to move now, and i am not entirely sure where we come out. >> let me look at the political trend tracker. we have been talking about the

soldier id'd behind the killings in afghanistan, and now the puerto rico primary, and bob woodward, the reality is that mitt romney is a weak frontrunner and he can't put away what a lot of people think is a weak field, and you hear from senator mccain his views on the accumulating toll on romney as a candidate and the party by the time they get to the general election. what are you expecting in the next week? >> well, not just the week, but there will be a republican running against obama, and senator mccain said under the supreme court decision, all of the new 21st century robber barrons can put tens of millions into the campaign, and it's negative and poison and venom, and we, nbc, "the new york times," "washington post," people in the media, i think we will be tested to say can we

present a clear-eyed view of who the candidates are, and not just have this negative atmosphere, i mean, that is -- i have never seen anything like it. during the nixon era, they had slush funds of $700,000, and now the slush fund will be $100 million. my god, what they are going to do. >> if you look at the president's job approval right now, he is hovering around a place he would like to hover, and that's 50% of his job approval. what is your view of how strong or how weak president obama is at this point as you look at this republican field? >> i don't know how strong or weak he is, except the republican field is in such disarray, he has to be very happy. you know, colorado is an interesting state. it's largely conservative, but places like boulder, denver, they are islands -- they call it

the peoples' republic of boulder for a reason. you are in this beltway, and i am in my own beltway. >> but, jon you were at ground zero for the obama re-election campaign, because colorado is a state he needs, and they are really banking to keep his whole western strategy. >> when it comes down to it, it will be the economy. coloradoans are concerned about a lot of things, but if the economy keeps improving, he's in good shape, and if it doesn't, all bets are off, even with the unimpressive early republican field. >> i think one of the most dangerous things about the decision is not that they are keeping more candidates in the race than what needs to be in the race, it's the question of access. if your campaign is being funded and bank rolled by one or two people, they are the ones that all will pick up the phone to call. >> it's a scandal. >> we will leave it there. thank you very much.

we will continue about the war. coming up, george clooney, about a cause that later got him arrested outside of the embassy of sudan in washington this week. >> i stand together here with my father. i have one moment in time when you ha they ask y buying this juicer online was unbelievable. what a bargain! [ female announcer ] sometimes a good deal turns out to be not such a good deal. but new bounty gives you value you can see. in this lab demo, one sheet of new bounty leaves this surface cleaner than two sheets of the leading ordinary brand. so you can clean this mess with half as many sheets. bounty has trap and lock technology to soak up big spills and lock them in. why use more when you can use less? new bounty. the clean picker upper.

george clooney made headlines this week, not for his acting but for his activism. he met with president obama and testified on capitol hill about sud sudan's humanitarian crisis and the government's there air strikes against their own people. on friday he was arrest ed outside sudan during a planned protest. >> it was my first arrest. thanks for asking. >> they recently made an eight-day trip to the war-torn region. i sat down with them both earlier this week and asked them what they saw. >> we went up into the area where is still not settled after the north/south -- the south became the newest country in the world, and there's some rebel fighting obviously. we went up a road that was pretty rough. they go back and forth. there was a lot of dead bodies on the road. but as we got further up and into the mountains, we'd see burned out vlks, burned farms. the people have had to move into

caves because every day they're indiscriminately bombed. we were there as the chinese 300 -- 200-millimeter rockets came over. we saw three of them hit. so we saw a lot. you know, we got a good view of what the movie is, and the move is basically hurt them, if you can, and they're not that accurate, terrify them for the most part and starve them to death. >> this is ethnic cleansing? >> there's no question about it. and there's no one that would dispute that, except, of course, the government of sudan. >> so what's at stake now? the worst-case scenario is that war in sudan heating up, the civil war, and a war resumes between sudan and south sudan. so if that war resumes, then this will be by far the largest war on the face of the earth.

so the stakes are very high in terms of human life. and so we think that unless there's that kind of crisis diplomacy that neated to be interjected now, the worst-case scenario could come to past. >> what we were really looking for, we were talking about what the united states needs to do that we do really well is diplomacy. that we have done. we know how to do that. that means getting china involved. china has a $20 billion infrastructure built in for oil. they take 6% of their oil from the sudan or their import. south sudan turned off the oil in a fight with the north, because they pump all their oil to the north, and then the north is keeping the money basically, so they shut it off. so that investment to china is no longer good, and they're not getting any money. so they are going out on the rest of the market like everybody to try and get that 6% made up, and it's costing them more money and us more money at the pump.

so we have this unique moment where if we got involved from a presidential level, and we're meeting with the president, to talk to president hu for that matter and say, listen, we're not appealing to angels or humanitarian causes -- and i've done that, and it doesn't work -- but this is economically important for you and it could be helpful, we could work together and it would be beneficial to both of us to make sure that we help orchestrate a peace. >> has in some ways this kony video changed the paradigm in terms of social action, political action, diplomatic action that a force for social justice can come and can arise a little bit more organically? >> now that it's -- this kind of communication has taken a quantum leap, the young people who put together the kony 2012 video tapped into a vein of

interest and concern and compassion that i think most people just didn't know existed. we've seen it a lot. when you go around to campuses and synagogues and churches all around the country, people care about these things, but don't know about them, and if you tell them this is what this is going on and this is what you can do to make a difference, people respond to that. >> if bono was able to put disease, aids and prevention on the map in the way the largest economies in the world confronted this, and he applauded president bush for launching this, and we are talking about military intervention, and through nato. >> the slaughter of innocent people oftentimes talks about -- you're talking about military intervention through nato or unilaterally. it depends. the truth is we're not going to do that. you know. nato's not going to go in there right now. the security council will always

have someone that will veto that. the united states is not going to do that. it's going to be hard to put a coalition to go in there and create a no-fly zone around the mountains. that's probably not going to happen. >> do you ever look at a problem like this and think, if i ran for public office, i could have more impact on this than just george clooney the actor? >> i think i have more influence on it here. there's no super pac that's given me money, and there's no outside influence for me. i can have an opinion, and it may not fit with what the u.n. wants and it may not fit with what other people want, and i can say this is what i think is right and stand by it. i think it's a lot easier than running for office. i don't have any interest in that. >> what about the guy that has interest in being re-elected? there are some who believe that he's heading into calmer waters for re-election and he looks good.

do you think that's a danger sign? do you think president obama looks good to be re-elected? >> i think he always looked good to be re-elected, even before the field, and as we are still looking to find out what the field is, because i happen to believe that democrats are just very poor in general at explaining what it is when they accomplish something. i think they're pretty bad at it. republicans are very good at it. if i was a republican or if obama was a republican, i would be selling all of the, you know, you saved the auto industry and you got oh sa many bin laden and you passed a health care bill that nobody could pass, if that was a republican issue. i would be able to sell his presidency as a very successful one, but democrats are bad at that. we like to pick each other apart. that's our thing, you know. i think it's going to be an interesting time. the worst thing you can do is feel in any way safe or cocky, because you will always lose. >> your friend matt damon has been critical of the president,

saying he was disappointed. do you share that? >> no. matt and i are friends, and we disagree, and that's what makes the world go around. he teaches and that's a very important part for him. and i, on the other hand, the issues that i believe and the president that i voted for, i'm very proud of. >> i'm going to ask you one artistic question just because i. ee going to kick myself if i don't. >> go. >> where would you like to stretch next? where would you like to challenge yourself next? >> i am thinking dance, david. i am thinking a musical. i know, you know, maybe combining what we're doing here, sort of a war crime musical. that's what i've been thinking about lately. >> with rebel leaders. >> i might even play a certain rebel leader right now. i might even do that. i tell you i don't know what to do. i just try to find jobs that i would like to see movies of, you

know. that's what i like to do. so i'm enjoying -- i'm in a good spot in my career right now. it's a good time for me. and i also -- you know, i'm a student of what it is i do for a living and understand that a good time in your career is always temporary, so i'm going to enjoy it while it lasts. >> and clooney said he made his fair share of mistakes and learned of that, and can you see the full interview with george clooney in which you can see on our blog, and that's presspassmsnbc.com. that's all for today. we will be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the we will be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com