Ummm, surely the war on terror didn't have anything to do with this, did it? You can't just crap money out, and there isn't enough time to trim the dead weight first.
That doesn't fly. If Clinton's $1.8T was bloated, then it was at least $100B too large. (I would at least doble that amount). The war has cost about $100B. Therefore, if Bush had a budget that spent more wisely and cut the waste, he would not have to increase it by a single penny, and STILL be able to pay for the war. He's increased it by $400B over a bloated amount... four times as much as the war. Increased spending on social programs accounts for the difference, not the war. (The war was not included in his first budget at all, by the way, and the increases were still there.)