> 4. None of your points support the case of "don't use stdbool"
Huh? I was saying that the language did not have to be extended to get a bool typedef. C99 defines a new type, _Bool (name from the reserved identifier space), which is different from existing types. stdbool is a simple typedef of _Bool to bool.
Also, introducing bool would have had meaning if implicit conversion to int wasn't allowed. But since it is, it's a useless type.
My viewpoint is that types exist for enforcing semantic constraints; what use of a bool type that allows performing semantically nonsense operation, such as implicit conversion to int in arithmetic context? The C99 committee messed it up big with bool.