Chris says:
A strawman argument makes the opposition's [sp?] argument absurd before attacking it.

There was no stawman argument by Bell. He just gives the least flattering side of the actual Moon argument. Wingo admits this before attacking Bell."

Strawman definition: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Dennis is saying that Bell is offering a distortion of the Bush Space Initiative. And Bell is arguing against this distorted position.
This is classic strawman stuff. It is somewhat absurd, but it wouldn't need to be absurd in go to qualify as a strawman.
Dennis does mention strawman and number of times:
Dennis:
"Dr. Bell does go on to build a strawman model of the requirements for the CEV that exist nowhere except in his desire to trash an effort that is yet to begin. The Aldridge commission has not made their report and even internally at NASA there are two wildly divergent architectures under consideration, one based upon constructing the elements at the International Space Station based upon EELV flights and one based upon launching the elements on a Shuttle derived HLLV that would bypass ISS for an Apollo style architecture. No where are either of these models codified in NASA plans or policies."

In other words Bell has given a requirement for CEV. It's not a NASA requirement, but is a requirement that Bell has thought is neccesary.

"Dr. Bell continues in his strawman development by making claims about how many EELV's it will take to implement the Lunar initiative. To use his language, he is dead wrong. While it could take the number of EELV's that he speaks of, it would only be if we were completely stupid in how we built the system. Dr. Bell implicitly assumes that everything will be thrown away after every mission requiring multiple launches each time to put up new hardware. Where is this defined in any of NASA's plans? Answer, it is not."

As Dennis says Bell's argument about EELV continues with his imagined requirement for CEV.

"Dr. Bell uses the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO) mission as one of his straws to show the danger from orbital debris and how NASA is unwilling to risk it's nuclear mission starting in LEO for that reason. Dr. Bell is dead wrong there. I have seen the NASA program documents about JIMO and the reason that they don't want to start in LEO is that the propulsion system of JIMO would take 2.5 years to climb out of Earth orbit and NASA's estimate of total radiation dose is 17 mega-rads versus 20 mega-rads in Jupiter orbit. This would require huge increases in shielding and it is clear that NASA's own numbers show that the radiation does is similar in both places as opposed to Dr. Bell's conjecture. It is also clear that the HLLV crowd at NASA is trying to use this issue to force the NASA administrator to sign on to the Shuttle C but there are solutions to this problem that do not require Shuttle C or long periods of time in the Van Allen belts. Dr. Bell uses very selective data, which is a bad trait in a scientist. However, scientists are influenced by politics as we all are. "

Since, we don't have the Bush Space Initiative details, it's fairly easy for Bell to make a mistake *misrepresenting* it. I think Bell's error is mostly that he can't see the various possibilities- he thinks it has to be a certain way and the facts are, it's not this simple. Also it's possible that Bell is confusing "sales talk" with facts. For instance, unless, Boeing is going to pay for the development costs of CEV, they don't have the final say on what a CEV is going to be [or even if they are going to build it]- though no doubt they could have various ideas they want to sell.