1. Thanks for finding an online text of the SOU. I was merely making comments as Bush spoke, while trying to keep listening to his further comments. [Additionally I have a terrible time remembering exact wording, specific details, my mind tends to process a step beyond that - to where the information is no longer in words/images at all - and I lose the details. The downside is that such information is not easily translatable.] I was certainly not trying to distort anything that was said. And, for the record, you were correct about the referencing my paraphrases to the correct quotes.
2. "For diplomacy to be effective... no one can now doubt the word of America." It is problematic for anyone to trust the word of plural entities, specially ones that have a shifting membership. "America" doesn't have a word to doubt. It might be seen as more accurate if by "word of America" he meant "word of Bush 43," but it would be seen as even more accurate as "and now everyone fears America under Bush 43."
2-a. Put another way, world opinion of America isn't going to change drastically or permanently due to the actions of one president. Even 8 years is rather insignificant in the life of a country (well, most countries.) So it is important what Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc and their administrations did and said (not to mention Congress, the Supreme Court, etc).
3. The Kuwait "quote" was referring to the situation you referenced, or rather a specific detail of it. I wasn't even saying anyone said that, I was pointing to the the US's cozy relationship with Hussain and Iraq because he was the lesser evil.
3-a. I had also never heard the idea that Bush 41 wanted a war so he could get re-elected. Everything I have seen has attributed it to an actual lack of concern, or atleast a wish to keep on Iraq's good terms, and that the change of heart came after Bush 41 and company saw how the nation and world were reacting to the invasion.
3-b. If I had thought of it I would've used a more recent example, such as Bush (or was it Powell?) saying that they would follow through with the vote in the UN Security Council authorizing the invasion (well, maybe "suggesting the invasion" would be better phrasing here), that is that they would force the vote - even though France and Russia were talking about using their veto. That is, at this moment I can claim that the vote would've been 11-4 against and that no veto would be necessary - if they had not withdrawn the resolution we would be able to say for certain what the vote was.
4. You wrote:
"Second, believe it or not, the US is defending itself. We were attacked first."
Please clarify. When did Iraq attack the U.S.? I honestly have no idea what this refers to.
5. I think terms like "Communism" and "Socialism" and "Marxism" have gotten terrible associations (atleast in the U.S.) due to Cold War rhetoric. The Soviet Union and China are/were problems because they're totalitarian, not because they are/were Communist.
5-a. Democracy is the opposite of totalitarianism; democracy is not opposed to socialism. It would be simplifying to say that democracy is a form or philopsophy of government and that socialism is an economic system, but that's where I'll leave it for now.
5-b. Additionally I am not convinced that democracy is all it's cracked up to be. That is, I am not saying that I have a superior alternative in mind; I am saying that democracy has it's share of flaws, as does any form of government. I don't see American style democracy as the be-all and end-all of governmental forms, a thousand years from now people will laugh at our quaintness, our arrogance, our self-assuredness.
6. [But now I'm getting into dealing with collective judgements, something I was knocking up in 2, so please understand that I realize this, and am doing so in the effort of finishing this post in a more reasonable amount of time. And yes, I understand that others do this as well. But, to re-iterate/summarize:
