This is a pretty personal rather than historical question. As someone who frequents topics of this discussion though it's tend to be put in the light that the Americans did not support the treaty and since many view the treaty as an embodiment of badness and evil they're absolved. On top of that America was only briefly involved and went back to isolationism post-war, many view it as not their place to meddle on European affairs at the time.

Again though this is less a history question than it is a personal one.

The US is not criticized more for not helping enforce the Treaty of Versailles because the US never ratified the treaty in the first place. President Wilson had been a key player in its negotiation, especially above all else the formation of the League of Nations, but under the US constitution it had to be passed in the Senate by a 2/3rds vote to mean anything. When Wilson returned to the United States he undertook a massive campaign to drum up support for the treaty, destroying his health in the process, but it wasn't enough. Senators had issues with everything from Armenia to China, but especially the League and American commitment to it. The issue of restrictions imposed on Germany also came up, with I believe excerpts from Keynes read on the Senate floor. So the point of view of it being too restrictive on Germany was crystallizing before the treaty was voted on.

So where as attention on Britain and France's commitment to Versailles focuses on the 1920s and especially the 1930s and lack of response to German violations, the focus on the US lack of commitment is that 1919-1920 period. And that period has received considerable coverage. It brings up the issues about the role of the US in the world, the intersection between domestic and foreign affairs, the power and limitations of presidential influence, the relationship between the executive and legislative branches in forming foreign policy, the gap between idealism as rhetoric and practice, and more. Wilson has been portrayed as a martyr brought low by short sighted senators, or an ivory tower intellectual who mismanaged a treaty that could have been passed, and everything in between.

For an in depth book on the debate, I'd recommend John Milton Cooper's Breaking the Heart of the World.

As for the claim that for being "spinned as not poor policy" well certainly there are voices that say American isolationism was and is the right path. And therefore rejecting Versailles from this view point was the correct decision. But are those the same people who are also criticizing France for not marching into the Saarland? I'm skeptical.