In my current quest to catch up on a whole lot of recent works of Christian apologetics, I've finally broached D'Souza's book. I'm about a quarter or a third through it, so it's fairly early days, but I've got to say in all honesty that the book is much better than I expected it to be (judged, for example, on D'Souza's style in oral debates).
The thing about D'Souza is that he can actually write - he presents his case in clear, crisp prose, and he seems to have a good grasp of the philosophical arguments (much better than I expected from his debates with Hitchens, where he is histrionic and rather shallow ... and then there's the fact that he does not have a background as a professional philosopher). So, credit where it's due.
That said, he makes claims that are, in their content, far more outrageous than anything you'll find in, say, Haught or Reitan. Unlike them, D'Souza is not a liberal in any sense: theologically, politically, or probably in any other way. He tends to see conspiracies by evil atheists. So far, however, he's doing a better job than others of saying these things without sounding angry, pathetically hurt, or uncivil. Maybe that will change - as Alister McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism seemed to lose the plot halfway through - but at this stage, D'Souza is, at the very least, a good exemplar of style. It'd be worth your while to have a look at how he does it. He manages to take some pretty cheap shots without obviously appearing to, and that is quite a rhetorical accomplishment.
Anyway, I have a long way to go. I'll report more when I'm further advanced.