You really believe that. And you've separated out the WOT funds, first, right?
When I post statements like that, I post from facts. Simple research from historical tables from the OMB budget clearly shows Clinton spent less on the HR Superfunction (social welfare of various sorts) as a % of total spending and Bush has spent way more than Clinton. Also, Bush has spent much more than Clinton on global welfare. The best measurement to always use when speaking of spending is the % of spending on a specific category as a total of all spending. That way, you can compare one era to another as it gives you a built in inflation adjustment. Comparing raw dollars spent is useless. It is no surprise to most since so many have reported it with factual backup that George Bush is more liberal than Bill Clinton if we speak of straight fiscal/social issues/spending.