But there is a big difference. Powell found no evidence that the intelligence had been cooked. Powell vigorously checked the intelligence and found it to be based on actual intelligence that at the time agreed--across agencies here and abroad--that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and was hiding programs and weapons from inspection attempts to find them.
Rice, on the other hand, actually used cooked intelligence in her talking points information:
Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized that information. And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.
Of course, the biggest difference is that in 2003 the intelligence provided to the Bush administration was wrong about what we'd find in Iraq when we invaded (whether that would have been true had we gone in during 2002 is another question, as far as I'm concerned) while in 2012 the intelligence provided to the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi was actually right--until it was changed. By somebody.
I assume Ambassador Rice didn't know what she was saying was wrong and changed by somebody. As President Obama said, she had nothing to do with Benghazi.
Which made her selection to be point person on all those Sunday talk shows after the attacks understandable--whoever changed the talking point didn't want someone who'd know better handling the public relations.
