"I understand what Dennis was doing and my point is there is no substitute of a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented position by Bell.

But, what is interesting is Dennis feels it all right for himself to take a ten year old costing effort (for something not even close to the current CEV designs) and use those numbers with it's lower and unrealistic costs and claim that shows the CEV costs are 60% over the actual needs! This while also claiming the commission hasn't defined the thing yet! "

The commision hasn't reached a conclusion, Bell can provide his vision and argue for this, but spending time arguing against a position that doesn't exist... well, what Bell is saying is there isn't any viable solution which is possible.
As far as the "ten year old costing effort". If this analysis is accurate, the CEV has this as a yardstick to compared against- if the CEV is not a better solution [is cheaper overall and/or provide more needed capability], why do the CEV?

"That's fine because we can also point out all major programs undertaken by NASA in the past few decades have been over budget by at least three times the costs first estimated so it is probably vastly underfunded if this holds true."

NASA can do a lot to overcome this if it initially establishes modest and doable objectives. Usually NASA's grand plans do just fine until it's time for them to face the reality of actually doing them.