True, the words quoted from the memo Plame wrote could be interpreted as response to questions asked about her husband. But that assumes someone asked those questions. But you stripped the "offered up his name" quote from context. Here's where it belongs:
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassadors wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassadors wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
Are you saying the CPD reports officer was lying when he said she "offered up his name"? Or are you saying he didn't really know, but thought she might have and assumed she did? By associating "offered up his name" with the memo, you are implying that the CPD reports officer merely read the memo and reported his interpretation of the memo to the committee knowing no other facts. That's your biased opinion, not shared by any reasonably objective reader.
Sorry if it seemed that used the phrase "offered up his name" out of context. I had seen the phrase before in a different context and should have explained that.
This is the Senate Intelligence Committee's summation of the CPD meeting at which the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger. It's unambiguous and indicates that whether Plame promoted her husband for the trip or merely offered to talk to him when asked she did not originate the idea of sending someone and did not make the decision to send him.
The whole question of Plame's participation is a disgusting red herring.