Tu Quoque variant?

Argument: Politician A (political party A) is immoral because of certain actions against groups of other people, and attacks made on politician B (political party B).
Response: Politician B (political party B) is a hypocrite because they have taken immoral actions against other groups of people, and have made similar attacks on politician A (political party A).

Originally I was thinking tu quoque - the respondent never supported the argument that politician A was either moral or immoral; they attacked the character of politician B instead. However, politician B wasn't the one making the argument - I was. A standard tu quoque fallacy would have been directed towards my hypocrisy.

Is this a tu quoque variant, or a different fallacy altogether?

Sure sounds like a variation on tu quoque. There are lots of variants; e.g., Nazi admirals said unrestricted submarine warfare wasn't immoral b/c the Americans did it too, and everyone knows Americans are moral, and therefore it was OK.
Paul Krugman calls a variation on the quo quoque fallacy "bothsidesism," which makes sense. That's the mistake of saying that we need to attack both sides equally, regardless of whether the other side is guilty.
In any case, we surely hear lots of hypocrisy from politicians, do we not?
Howard Kahane points out that two wrongs don't make a right, which should settle all of those disputes.

It's still a tu quoque (whataboutism) variant whether they implicate you directly or not. Remember, it's a fallacy of distraction and not a direct response to the original argument. If they accused you of being hypocritical by overlooking B's actions towards A it could possibly qualify as an ad hominem tu quoque.

"In any case, we surely hear lots of hypocrisy from politicians, do we not?
Howard Kahane points out that two wrongs don't make a right, which should settle all of those disputes."

Isn't that a classic Ipse Dixit fallacy? Haha!