Unlikely? Why "unlikely"? What "risk"?
Remember, we're talking months prior to 9/11 here. The only "risk" accrues to al-Ani and Iraq, not to Atta. The only "risk" being that we would find out about such a meeting, assume there was an Iraq connection...and whack Saddam.
Well, we whacked him anyway...
At any rate, Tenet's reasoning is a bucket without a bottom. It won't hold water...
Ergo, the only reason for making the statement, therefore, is to mislead the media (and embarrass Cheney).
It's part of an orchestrated campaign against Cheney. Also, it might be a cover up operation. Jan Kavan, the Czech foreign minister at the time, suggested that american intelligence was informed of the meeting before 9/11 and the Americans might fear the information because they failed to act (though even the czechs might not have know it was Atta until after his pic was broadcat post-9/11.)
This will be fodder for the Anti-Cheney faction in our services. Cheney's hope might rest in a complete discussion of all the events, or the Czechs speaking up again.
Cheney himself was 50-50 skeptical, but that's rarely reported.
---Unlikely? Why "unlikely"? What "risk"?
That's exactly what I would like to understand. What is the "unlikely" based upon? That Atta left his cell phone which wouldn't function in Europe behind? That the friends who used his credit cards wouldn't have used the phone he left behind? That he didn't use his own passport when these guys were swimming in phoney ID's? I wish the CIA would at least attempt a serious argument for their position.