Perhaps. But I still think NASA should accept a fair amount of the blame because they did use commercial pressure to influence an engineering decision - that's a professional foul IMHO. As people from *any* discipline (engineering, QA, Safety, Procurement, Legal, Finance, Commercial, Manufacturing, Logistics or WHY) get more senior in a company they will become necessarily more and more responsible for "the whole business" rather than their particular specialism. Equally NASA is an "intelligent customer" so if they apply pressure to suggest that they feel a particular technical risk in a sub-system is an acceptable risk for the whole system there will always be the thought as to whether their view should be given weight.
But as I said before - the really BAD issue was the way NASA ticked off their Launch Readiness Review on the basis that an investigation was "in-progress" rather than "complete with findings implemented". To my mind if there is to be a lynching (which I'm not necessarily saying there should be) the person who said it was OK to do that should be the first in the queue for the noose!
PDR