True indeed... painfully true in many cases.
That said, remember that even though the CIO (and/or directors, etc) are easily swooned by vendors, consider this: One expensive fuck-up at the strategic level can destroy a career in less time than it takes for the CFO (or someone similar) to lodge a complaint in the boardroom, the first massive security incident, the first major outage... (and if you think the CIO is taking the heat for it, you're insane... that's why he drags a director or two into the process.)
That's why you don't (usually) see some CxO tromping up to a podium to announce "We're putting all our shit on the cloudz and it will be the awesomes!" without a metric shit-ton of consultation with (and agreement from) the rest of the C-level types. Oh *hell* no... first, he's going to drag the beancounters into it, and make them take part in the decision (if only to share the blame). Then he's gonna pile on the justifications (vendors will supply a lot of it, but if there is insufficient in-house justification, it's usually no-go), and make sure there's enough names on that thing to share the blame (but not enough to bury his getting the credit for it.)
All that said... no IT honcho worth his salt is going to do any of this without at least some input from a trusted sysadmin/developer/etc or two... if you think he did such a thing arbitrarily, then he's either flamingly incompetent, or that trusted person is definitely not you (or you're probably not high enough in the food chain, haven't sufficiently proven yourself, etc.)
PS: Fun bit about the whole deadline thing once a decision is made. He told the C-level guys 18 months as an ETA, but told the director to get it done in 6 months. By the time it filters down to you a day later, you got 6 weeks to complete it, and no weekends or vacations until it's done. :/