Oddo

 A diachronic study or analysis concerns itself with the evolution and change over time of that which is studied; it is roughly equivalent to historical. Thus diachronic linguistics is also known as historical linguistics. A synchronic study or analysis, in contrast, limits its concern to a particular moment of time. Thus synchronic linguistics takes a language as a working system at a particular point in time without concern for how it has developed to its present state. The extent to which synchronic study really does as it were take a frozen slice of history for study is itself not absolute: to talk of a system necessarily implies movement and interaction, and movement and interaction take place in time.
5
"In the present analysis, I attempt to uncover how the superordinate thematic formations
of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ are construed across all four speeches in order to justify military
action. Specifically, I identify key lexico-semantic connections between Bush’s call-toarms
rhetoric and the earlier call-to-arms rhetoric of FDR. In so doing, I aim to challenge
the notion that Bush’s manipulative call-to-arms rhetoric is an historical aberration.
Indeed, this analysis situates Bush’s wartime rhetoric within its wider historical and
intertextual context to show that even the ‘best’ of American presidents have misled the
public to legitimize war.8"

legitimate and manipulative discourse

p. 7 speech - public opinion
How were these people manipulated?
Bitzer - what else was in the air? Rhetorical ecologies!!!  Patti suggests that this has not been considered in an attempt to make his point - or he has to recast his point.
Her question - what was he after?

Should he have taken this "further"? Discussions of war - what contributes to other forces (before and after...)