The FinCEN guidance absolutely, categorically did not say that Bitcoin was money. Hence the gravity of this development.
This is a very important point likely lost in the telephone game of people generalizing statement and removing context after the FinCEN announcement.
FinCEN by virtue of the BSA have very wide (I would argue maybe too wide) authority to regulate far more than transactions involving money. A simplified non-legal definition is that FinCEN regulates the transfer of value. FinCEN never said Bitcoin is money, they didn't even say it is a "currency" instead relegating in their guidance to the term "virtual currency" (which doesn't appear in any statute). FinCEN merely said that the exchange of virtual currencies for real currencies (and vice versa) as well as the exchange of one virtual currency for another (aka "being an exchanger") constitutes money transfer. Depsite the word money in the name, money transfers involve a lot more than just money.
As you point out this was incorrectly simplified to "Bitcoin is money" but was never correct until today.
I agree they tiptoed around the word Money and even plain Currency. It was certainly implied and the direction was clear.
Next question is when will dividends from companies like ASIC Miner require a 1099-DIV!