NASA has absorbed a great deal of criticism, and while some of it is justified, Mike Griffin is right when he says NASA can only execute the policy given to it by the White House with the funds given to it by Congress.  In other words, he was indirectly saying that while it is fair to criticize NASA for poor execution, it isn't fair to criticize NASA for poor space policy and insufficient funding to carry-out its orders.

During the Q&A, he emphasized that the Federal procurement system is designed to ensure fairness to all companies that wish to conduct business with the government.  This has led to an incredibly cumbersome process with numerous oversight mechanisms that can slow or halt progress on government programs, NASA or otherwise.  And the larger the program, the greater the oversight and potential for disruption.  In other words, this system is not designed for efficiency.

To any observer of Federal procurement practices, this is no surprise.  And considering that it's your tax dollars that are being spent, the emphasis on fairness is understandable.  But is this any way to explore, settle, and develop the solar system in an economically sustainable manner?  After fifty years of government space programs, the answer is obviously, "No."

What is required is the brutal efficiency (the exact opposite of fairness) of private sector competition and markets.  It's ugly, it's painful, it's harmful to weak businesses, but it gets the job done while creating new wealth throughout the economy.  This is why we have a plethora of air, sea, and land transportation vehicles on Earth, and is the only way to create the same off-planet.