In "Lies for the Public Good", Sissela Bok analyzes the basic difference between secrecy and lying. This is an analysis that I accept; along with the need for secrecy therefore I also accept that it is not sensible to rule completely in a fishbowl. I believe that the government cannot give good reason for authorized lying. .
Bok identifies two types of lies that I agree to. One of these lies is known as the "white lie". The white lie should be a lie clearly particular as such. White lies should be difficult to be mistaken for truth.
The second lie Bok identifies is permissible lying that occurs during the early evaluation stages of a public emergency. It is not justifiable to lie in order to prevent a public panic. I must say that the public usually ignores government warnings anyway. When rare and unexpected state of affairs necessitate this initial lie, public representatives would confess and validate it once the immediate original danger is over. Due to this being extremely uncommon, the need for the politician's acceptance would dishearten overuse.
I think that the U-2 example used by Bok is a weak example of mitigating a temporary emergency lie. Our government would not have had to lie about Powers being shot down had they not already decided to lie about the existence of high altitude spy missions. The temptation to lie and cover it up was a result of the original decision to lie in the first place. Public dispute should have handled the necessity for undercover work. The Soviets knew that we over flew them and we knew that they knew we over flew them. The lying served no point besides the need to protect the careers of politicians in authority.
The United States began the Spanish-American War forty-three years before the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. They destroyed the Maine and accredited it to the Spanish in Cuba. President Roosevelt may have anticipated a similar experience with Pearl Harbor since the Maine went so well.