Fareed Zakaria takes a look at the new work out from David Frum and Richard Perle in this past Sunday's Times Book Review. The book, "An End to Evil," discusses the 'right's' foreign policy plans to end terrorism.
Zakaria spends about the first third of the review approvingly- noting that the writers argue for three fronts (home, abroad, and in ideas): 1) tougher monitoring and border control; 2) tougher treatment toward terrorist supporting/associating regimes; and 3) a battle against radicalism, in favor of democratic reforms.
Zakaria writes:

Most of their arguments and proposals on these three fronts are intelligent and worthwhile. Many have been put forward by other writers and political figures at different points on the political spectrum (among them, Thomas Friedman, the editorialists of The Washington Post and this writer). But to say this would not please Perle and Frum, for the central stylistic pose of their book is angry radicalism. The war on terror has reached a ''crisis point,'' they declare. ''We can feel the will to win ebbing in Washington. . . . The ranks of the faint hearts are growing and their voices are echoing ever more loudly in our media and our politics.''
Frum and Perle make many of their proposals sound provocative and contested by sprinkling in sentences like, ''For some Democrats, winning the war has become a less urgent priority than winning the next election,'' and ''Many Democrats in Congress seem to be interested less in defending the homeland than in preparing to recover after the next terrorist attack'' and ''We have wanted to fight and they have not.''
Reading this book one might forget that in the last two years, with broad support from Democrats and the public, the United States has fought two wars, made antiterrorism the central focus of international politics, created a Department of Homeland Security, shifted its Middle East policies and instituted hundreds of changes to its law enforcement and immigration regulations. Support for such actions remains very strong across the board -- indeed the Department of Homeland Security was a Democratic proposal -- with the one exception of the original decision to go to war in Iraq, on which the Democrats, like the country at large, were and are divided. The authors talk tough on Saudi Arabia, for example, but might be dismayed to find that the candidate who most strongly echoes their views is Howard Dean.

This is where the article switches to the mode of the second thirds: basically a slam on the neocons.

The angry style is a hallmark of neoconservatives and their more traditional conservative colleagues. Though they run the most powerful country in the history of the world, controlling the federal government, the courts and a majority of state legislatures and executives, they still speak like a bitter minority, constantly outraged by the powers that be. It's an effective pose commercially, providing much grist for the best-seller mill. And one suspects that consciously or unconsciously this book has been influenced by the frothy best sellers that tell tales of Clinton's treason and left-wing media bias. But this is a pity (and quite unlike Frum's earlier work) because there is much here that could form the basis of a strong bipartisan antiterror foreign policy.

One can sense Zakaria's dismay. As he writes in the review, he has known Frum for a number of years.
Give a read- it's both a useful glimpse into some ideas and a reminder of the troubles of partisanship.