Iâm a little confused about this âwhataboutismâ thing. Apparently it is bad unless it involves Republicans in which case it becomes hypocrisy.
Very confusing.
Ken Starr, and the counsel before him, were tasked with looking into the Clintonâs allegedly shady real estate deals.
Did the people complaining that Mueller needs to âhurry upâ and is âtaking too longâ ever complain that the counsels looking into the Clintons were taking too long? Or that they were investigating beyond their scope with the Monica stuff?
The very people whining about âprocess crimesâ now were perfectly content with Slick Willy being impeached over âprocess crimes.â
Does any of this help clear your confusion on why Ken Starr was brought up?
This wahtaboutism thing is very confusing. Apparently it is showing hypocrisy sometimes and whataboutism other times, depending on the political party involved.
No, it has nothing to do with the party involved, but rather whether those involved are consistent.
âWhataboutism is easy.â
Politician A does thing.
Politician B does thing.
When A was president, Bâs supporters complained about it. Bâs supporters justify B doing that thing because they claim A did it also.
âBut what about when A did it?â falls flat because B himself, and Bâs supporters werenât happy when A did it. Theyâre citing A having done it to justify B doing it now.
That is whataboutism (in politics). Itâs justifying the actions of a politician you like by saying âlook, the other guy did it too,â when you were critical of âthe other guy doing it.â
Calling out that hypocrisy is not âwhataboutism.â The hypocrisy itself is the âwhataboutism.â