I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees. Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination.
Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.
Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different. Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place? The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it. For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field. Why do we want them? So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour. The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide. Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial.