You're wrong that anyone was poisoning the well. The Washington Times' credibility is germane.
But, more to the point, you are putting forth a pernicious Machiavellian argument, namely that the Democrats must act duplicitously in order to avoid benefitting from critical policy failures in Iraq. Do you really not see why some people might consider that highly unreasonable?
I can explain the Democratic party's motives: if we actually have failed (with regard to our original goals) in Iraq, it behooves us to recognize that fact and adjust expectations, rather than pretend that everything is just going to get better if we keep on throwing money and lives at the problem. This sort of post hoc error is pretty common in the corporate world, too; the problem isn't that the plan was critically flawed, it's that some people were critical of the plan. Why couldn't they just adopt the plan? The plan was going to work!
You are arguing (equivocally, that you might cry about straw men when called on it) that Democrats are commiting sedition by daring to criticize the war effort. Hell, if they succeed in ending the war, they're even profiteering on the subsequent deaths! Isn't it awful how people who are correct tend to benefit politically in democracies? We really must prevent that from happening.
