In so many words he is saying:

"People complain about my language, because they use it. If it wasn't good (enough) they would not have used it."

Thus the complaints are relegated from feedback to proof that the choices made were right thus invalidating complaints.

So by not changing X they are automatically and implicitly disagreeing with any complaints referring to X? You're reaching.

EDIT: In case my point wasn't apparent, the language is under active development by an open, international standardisation committee, of which Stroustrup is an active and prominent member. They are well aware of the complaints, but the problem is that every change involves a tradeoff, and sometimes that tradeoff is just not worth it.