I'd have to review the timing of the events, but I expect that the pilots spooled up the engines to max power in response to controllability problems. If the plane is wallowing and not responding to control inputs, the instinctive reaction is to increase airspeed by lowering the nose and increasing power because that's the sign of an imminent stall.
I don't claim to be a pilot, but I've been in a plane going through turbulence many times before, and I don't ever recall the pilot trying to "gun it" through the bumps.
In cruise, reducing power is the proper response. All planes have what is called a "manuevering speed", which is at the top of the green arc on the airspeed indicator and the beginning of the yellow (caution) arc.
At manuevering speed, full deflection of the controls will not overstress the airframe. Also, turbulent air will toss the plane around, but will not over-stress the plane because the wings and control services (like the tail) will stall before a structural failure will occur. If you are near the ground, this loss of lift is a problem, but at altitude you can still recover.
This flight was still at low altitude in a climb profile. They were almost certainly not exceeding the manuevering speed. That's why this whole thing about wake turbulence is bogus, unless they can conclusively prove that there was already a flaw that made the plane vulnerable.
Thanks for your informative reply. I understand this morning that the Feds are still focused on the turbulence scenario, and are also focusing on the composition of the vertical stabilizer as a factor in the structural failure of the plane. Reportedly, the vertical stab. sheared off cleanly like it was cut with a Ginzo knife above the anchoring bolts. Supposedly the French Airbus company makes this part of the frame out of some composite that sounds like chewing gum and boogers. Now they're talking about examining the vert. stab.s and rudders in the whole AA fleet.