I hope people are realizing that this is one of the most classic tales in human history.
Who is really on who's side of what?

Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset during operations in Afghanistan against the USSR. The fact that the Bush family has strong ties to the Bin Laden family is a matter of public record. Now let's play connect the dots. There are radical factions of Islam trying to convert nations into Islamic states, but is Bin Laden actually one of these radicals or was he simply a poster figure used to symbolize all these small, leaderless factions? They do have leadership, but not a single leader, it's a honey-comb structure. So Bin Laden became a symbolic head of the radical islamic movement for the sake of those who wanted to mobilize their armies against radical Islam.

What I'm saying is that Osama Bin Laden isn't really the leader of radical Islam, the CIA employed him (willingly) as a symbolic figure head because they believed that the public would respond with support only if they could see a single human figure as it's leader. No one wants to send their armies out to play whack-a-mole against a honey-comb type organization that can lose a part of it's structure and remain in tact, so it had to be sold with the Bin Laden figure head.

Bin Laden is a covert operative working for the CIA as a symbolic figure head of Al-Quaeda for the sake of selling the war against terrorism to the American people. That's why he will never be caught.

Think about it, more troops were sent to Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 than troops sent to Afghanistan where Bin Laden was supposedly hiding. Why? Tactical blunder? I don't think so.