On one of my recent radio programs, I said something in the heat of passion that in retrospect, should have been more tempered. My comments were about those members of Congress who announced they would not attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.

If I had chosen my words more carefully and said instead that members of Congress, including the Black Congressional Caucus who chose to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress, were putting immature high school partisanship behavior ahead of very serious world affairs, that this isn’t a game or a time to be acting as petulant juveniles, my comments likely would have gone unnoticed.

As we know, the paid and unpaid leftist supporters of the Obama Administration monitor everything.  Thus, my comments were picked up by a rabidly leftwing online website. It was quickly tweeted, resulting in a barrage of tweets and Facebook posts that were nastier than anything I said.  Those who accused me of hate speech exhibited amazingly uncreative hate speech of their own.

Instead, my comments have been misconstrued as racist.  Could I have been more considered in my remarks?  Of course.

Instead, to use an expression said by President Obama in describing a comment made by then Senate Majority leader Harry Reid,  I used “inartful language”.   In the heat and passion of the moment, I expressed my opinion of those 57 Congressional members who rebuffed Netanyahu’s historic speech by staying away.

As a former CIA officer tweeted, “All members of Congress who boycotted this speech have dishonored themselves” – a more “artful” way of putting it.

Or a cable news commentator who tweeted “Shame on POTUS, the VP & all the members of Congress who have turned their backs on #Netanyahu over their political petulance.”

Mea culpa.