Only you seem to be having trouble following this
One more try: I AGREE with your premise, let's not count 2001 against Bush and apply it to Clinton. It is a reasonable thing to do since it was still Clinton's budget in 2001 and Bush had not been in office long enough to implement any of his policies. GOT IT!? AGAIN, Yes I am agreeing. 2001 was Clinton's.
By the same reasoning THAT MAKES 2009 Bush's year, RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT?
So when you fudged up you "new" employment stats show Bush had created more jobs by factoring out 2001, YOU FAILED TO ADD 2009 to Bush's number, as you should to be consistent. Do you get it yet????? WTF!?