Im not close to how the US collect figures but this response looked logical. Much the same how the UK massage their employment figures. In short - the worse off will be worse off when the next recession happens.
Labor Force" as defined by the BLS does not include the following: people over 16 who live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are on active duty in the Armed Forces. So you have to eliminate all military, under 16s, and institutionalized individuals. That's about 1.3+65+(2.3+1.5) million, or about 70 million people. That leaves 30 million unaccounted from the number given above.
"Not in the Labor Force" also includes the following: retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. There are over 50 million people over 65 in the US. While many work, I think they can easily make up the 30 million difference. That doesn't even include the over 15s that are in school.
So the statement that " If you would like to claim that we have had a very marginal “employment recovery” since the last recession, that is a legitimate argument to make. But anything beyond that is simply not being honest," is based on incomplete and poorly researched material. It's likely that things haven't changed significantly based on the numbers I've found, though asset bubbles, "fake" jobs like Solyndra, and a few other factors have caused things to skew a bit.