That'll be in the classified operation histories. Understandably, its hard to imagine Langley rushing to take credit for OBL.
Plausible deniability isn't a punchline at the CIA.
According to the unclassified 1998 CIA biography of bin Laden: By 1984 Osama was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) --which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
MAK was funded and supplied by the Pakistans state security services (ISI). The CIA didn't trust the native tribal factions in Afghanistan, --quite probably they couldn't understand --or "read" the loyalties of the rivalry-ridden natives.
But for whatever reason, and as a matter of public record, the CIA was willing to deal with the ISI, and let the ISI pick the out the good chaps from the bad.
As Arabs militants flocked to Afghanistan from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia; The ISI gave them money and guns, too.
One of those groups being Osama bin Laden's MAK.
By the end of the Afghan war in 1989, with the Soviets ousted from Afghanistan, bin Laden was welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy. --But like many other Afghan vets, or Afghanis as the Arab mujahedeen called themselves, Osama bin Laden had gone radical.
In fact, while he returned to his familys construction business, bin Laden had already split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.
In 2001, Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the Afghanis did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. Although technically correct, al-Zawahiri failed to note the funding provided by the ISI, or the funding provided by the Saudi royals, matching the CIA dollar-for-dollar, passing thru the same ISI conduit.
Pakistan is not a rich country and little known for waging covert wars, but their ISI is not above a little under the table dealing.
Especially when the big dogs like the United States and the Saudis are playing ... and paying.
So do you think it was tax-dollars from the CIA or petro-dollars from Saudi Arabia? Or was it a little double dealing by the ISI?
Or just a classic case of plausible deniability?
Here's one article written by Miniter that challenges the link. Allegedly OBL's funds came from the Saudis matching US dollars, not actual US dollars.
To say that the ISI may have mixed the funds is a far cry from proving that the US supplied OBL "with the best of the best military equipment we had," as Davey Crockett wrote. I await the weblink from FARS though.