First, even if you disagree with what Bush did, nothing he did in this was remotely impeachable. What was actually done? He released the Iraq NIE -- something that most people wanted released, including antiwar Democrats and the press -- to counteract claims made by Wilson. How is this worthy of impeachment?
Second, what Wilson said was actually false, in a few ways, but most importantly, in that the British intelligence Bush based the "16 words" on in his 2003 State of the Union speech was from completely separate intelligence than anything Wilson had any knowledge about. Wilson kept claiming he showed Bush's WMD claims were false, except that he had no actual knowledge or evidence that this was the case, since the only stuff he knew about wasn't actually being used in the claims.
So how does this amount to impeachment: doing something completely innocuous in order to show that someone who was wrong, was wrong? I can't figure it out. I am blinded by facts.